Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday
![]() |
- EPICENTER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sourcing is poor, even after it was "improved". Myself and others have failed to find any good secondary sources for this organization. Most of the sources in the article are primary or non-RS, or do not cover the subject in enough detail. Notability is not established and article seems promotional in nature. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Urbonavičius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disambiguation page with no valid links. There are no people with this name listed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a disambiguation page. --Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- keep, Valid surname page. These are notable people with potential articles, eg by btranslation from the corresponding text from lt-wiki --Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We'll try one more relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Urbanavičius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disambiguation page with no valid links. There are no people with this name listed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not a disambiguation page. --Altenmann >talk 05:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Valud surname page. --Altenmann >talk 05:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete It would be valid surname page if it had sourced information about the surname itself, or a list of people with the surname about whom we have information in en.wiki. It fails on both. PamD 07:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you need sorces, add {cn}, not delete. I easily added a ref after a minute of search. YEs we have info in en-wiki about the people, e.g., [1]. It is normal to have redlinks for persons reasonably notable for future articles. --Altenmann >talk 08:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. A valid, helpful, surname SIA with potential for expansion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- 2017 South Sudan Supreme Airlines Antonov An-26 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with barely any/no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects nor long-term impacts have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- •Merge . I believe due to there being no notable injuries nor fatalities that this incident is not notable, the article should be merged into An-26 Accidents and Incidents along with the shortening of the accidents and incidents catalouge in South Sudan Supreme Airlines for this accident, i'll try to lengthen the original catalouge in the An-26 page to compensate for the shortening of the original catalouge. Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that it should be merged per WP:NOTNEWS. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 22:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a merge target in mind? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- • Comment My apoligies for not making the merge target clear, i'd like to merge it into the accident and incidents page for the An-26, since its already in the catalouge for Wau Airport, i'll expand the Wau Airport entry with basic information from this article to pertain it. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's okay, no need to apologize. I understood the merge target you proposed, I was just wondering what merge target user Hamterous1 had in mind.
- And unrelated to that, welcome back :) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, happy to see you again, i'll be more active in this AFD category from now on along with the 2024 in aviation article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- • Comment My apoligies for not making the merge target clear, i'd like to merge it into the accident and incidents page for the An-26, since its already in the catalouge for Wau Airport, i'll expand the Wau Airport entry with basic information from this article to pertain it. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a merge target in mind? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge over to Antonov An-26, I found some AP coverage but it was only one article, I then looked into some French and Spanish papers but wasn't able to find anything useful. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It sounds like there are two different Merge targets being proposed, Antonov An-26 and another that has yet to be identified. Please don't mention the subject of a target article, provide a link to the page you are talking about so the closer doesn't have to go on a search to find what you are talking about.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Rocket drone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced with claims of significance being completely uncited. Other sources also note the "Rocket Drone" is a misconception as it in fact uses a jet engine and is also not a unique design as other kamikaze drones with jet engines already exist. UtoD 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, Aviation, and Ukraine. UtoD 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge : It seems perhaps merging some of this content with either Precision-guided_munition or Loitering_munition or Cruise_missile would be right step. Though I'm not sure anyone publicly knows much for sure about Ukraine's rocket drone munition to know how it should be classified. Ukraine even claims it's brand-new technology, but I don't know enough about it to know if that's true. Perhaps "rocket drone" should be a re-direct to an appropriate page. The sourcing should not be an issue...there's plenty of Ukrainian government statements that they have made a "rocket drone" (or "missile drone"), you could improve the article yourself by adding those references. A lack of references isn't a reason for deletion, it's a reason to put "citation needed". The bigger reason to turn this into a re-direct is, as you point out, that it seems similar "jet drones" already exist, and "rocket drone" is just a Ukrainian-translated (or mis-translated?) term for the same thing. Unless Ukraine really has made something new, which we'll have to wait to find out. The wiki unfortunately doesn't really seem to contain any generic discussion of "jet drone" munitions. I looked at the link you supplied, and looking at the wiki, there's a page for the non-munition QinetiQ_Banshee, but the munition variant seems like a recent hack by the UK. But there's no generic page or content for such "jet drone" munitions. The situation is even worse for the HESA_Karrar where it's known to be a jet drone, but disputed whether it can even carry munitions, and no content in the wiki about it BEING a munition. There is the Shahed_drones#Shahed_238 that is described as a loitering jet munition...but nothing on the Loitering_munition page about anything jet-powered. So maybe merge some jet content into the Loitering_munition page and make "rocket drone" and "missile drone" redirect to Loitering_munition
- Jason C.K. (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This looks like it's focused on a specific Ukrainian drone, so perhaps we should merge it to Palianytsia (missile)? Whether or not the broader concept should have an article could be a future discussion for WT:MILHIST. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- The link supplied by UtoD shows that other "jet drones" already exist, and at least 2 are already referenced in Wikipedia (QinetiQ Banshee and Shahed 238). But there's no generic coverage (yet?) of "jet drones" in the Loitering_munition page Jason C.K. (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- redirect to Palianytsia, there is not really anything to merge is there. Once there's some actual knowledge about what makes rocket drone any different another weapon - if it's drone with a rocket motor or a cruise missile with a remote control - then we can see where the term should really go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- The link supplied by UtoD shows that other "jet drones" already exist, and at least 2 are already referenced in Wikipedia (QinetiQ Banshee and Shahed 238). But there's no generic coverage (yet?) of "jet drones" in the Loitering_munition page. Of course, we don't know yet FOR SURE that Palianytsia is just another jet drone...but UtoD's linked article makes it seem all but certain Jason C.K. (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- In that case redirect to UAV or cruise missile. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the most accurate re-direct would be to Loitering_munition. Jason C.K. (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- In that case redirect to UAV or cruise missile. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article to be removed. Ukrainian new missile has nothing to do with rocket. Jaburza (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Or rename to "jet drone", since non-Ukrainian ones already exist (QinetiQ Banshee and Shahed 238), this one seems to be similar, and that's perhaps the best English translation of what the Ukrainians are saying Jason C.K. (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- What's in the phrase "jet drone" that us distinguishable from "jet-powered drone"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Either phrase seems fine to me. Though what I think should happen is the most commonly-used new terms (missile drone and rocket drone) as well as the most accurate term (jet drone) should re-direct to Loitering_munition, and that page should include some text about how some drones are jet-powered Jason C.K. (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- What's in the phrase "jet drone" that us distinguishable from "jet-powered drone"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with loitering munition per Jason C.K., GraemeLeggett, and the duck test. Secondary sources do not adequately explain how this class of weapons is distinguishable from existing jet-powered loitering munitions, and circumstances suggest that Ukrainian claims about its unique capabilities may be propaganda. (As an aside, I wonder if using the word "rocket" to describe a jet-powered munition may be an example of inexact translation, i.e., perhaps the Ukrainian term meaning "rocket" can also mean "powered by something other than a propeller" in context.)
- Or rename to "jet drone", since non-Ukrainian ones already exist (QinetiQ Banshee and Shahed 238), this one seems to be similar, and that's perhaps the best English translation of what the Ukrainians are saying Jason C.K. (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Carguychris (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is absolutely no consensus here, not even agreement on a possible Merge target article. Maybe another week of discussion and consideration will help come to some agreement here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- 2MASX J22550681+0058396 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850 SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete per nomination ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 02:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just to add, I think we need a more rigorous discussion of this object. The criteria is significant coverage, not mere mention. And no such study exists. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
There is some commentary beyond the trivial mention in a table in three small scale studies: [2][3], and [4], and there is of course the hubble's picture of the week. Weak keep. --C messier (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as right now it's No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- SBSS 0953+549 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Trying again to delete this article. The reasons for keep in the past nominations are ridiculous and superficial. The only relevant paper (Levshakov et al. 1986) only mention spectral data and nothing of note. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with your decision to delete it. SBSS 0953+549 is my weakest article so far and upon its creation, realized the information doesn't make any sense or is vague. After the first discussion ended in no consensus, I didn't bother to look at the article since it is a disappointment to me. Galaxybeing (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per what Galaxybeing said... ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 12:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This quasar has been the subject of at least two studies [5][6], and there is also some commentary here [7]. These are enough to fullfil the criteria. The fact that there is little interest about the object now doesn't mean it isn't notable, as once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. (from WP:NTEMP).--C messier (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - As I've said before, definitely not notable. We don't explicitly define "significant coverage", but a couple of barely cited papers from 30+ years ago does not feel "significant" in any way. Wikipedia is not made better by keeping this article around, as there is nothing to put in it. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- So how something feels is how significant coverage is judged? --C messier (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per C messier. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was just at AFD in July and closed as No Consensus and it looks like the same outcome might happen here. I'm not sure that much has changed in a few weeks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Twins at St. Clare's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable source to pass WP:GNG and does not appear to match any of WP:NBOOK's criteria. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC) - Comment: I didn't get very far in my own search for sources, but it would really surprise me if a book by Enid Blyton wasn't notable under WP:NBOOK. I expect there's coverage in historical newspapers. -- asilvering (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: I've found two pieces of coverage (The Observer and Coventry Standard), but they are a bit shorter than I'd like. There also might be some coverage somewhere between pages 142-149 in From Morality to Mayhem: The Fall and Rise of the English School Story, published by Lutterworth Press, but whether this is about the book or the series, I can not tell as the preview cuts off. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- However, if a decision is made to delete this article, a merge/redirect to St. Clare's (series) would be preferable. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep per ARandomName. Some of the coverage makes me think all these articles might be better off upmerged to the series even if they are technically notable, but that can be done editorially. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two arguments to Keep but they are Weak Keeps so additional opinions would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Some coverage here as well [8], probably just enough with the sources in the comment above. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Exactly what a dictionary definition is, exactly what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTDICT. My prod was deleted by a guest user. SJD Willoughby (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I bring up Wikihow and Quaran websites, none of which are helpful, as sourcing in my search. I don't see why we need this, the sourcing now used basically just confirms it exists where it says it does. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOTDICT, WP:DUE. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no-brainer, not a dictionary. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It is true the article in it's current form is more of a dictionary entry but when deciding to delete something or not the current state of the article is not that important, the significance of the topic is. I believe that because this phrase has cultural/religious significance that can be seen in its wide usage when someone dies in middle eastern cultures it is significant in the same way the article "Raining cats and dogs" is. Therefore I believe it should be kept on that basis as it is a common expression and other common expressions also have articles. EvilxFish (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, and a lot of Wikipedia articles are kind of like dictionaries anyway since they have a title and give the definition, such as the article on cats. They're just much more detailed. Like you said, this saying also has such cultural and religious significance that it deserves its own article. This saying is referred as the "Istirja", so maybe that could be the article's title instead. I think that'd be better but I say keep it! BlueOtaku8000 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a second, unbolded Keep comment so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)- Delete. I think this phrase, along with other ones such as the basmala, tasbih, etc, should just be thrown on Wiktionary. There's a table on the Dhikr page with commonly used phrases, so we could just swap out those links for the Wiktionary links. AmrAlWatan(🗣️|📝) 02:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per EvilxFish's argument. Abo Yemen✉ 09:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per EvilxFish. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Embassy of Moldova, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article merely confirms it exists plus a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Moldova, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Like many of these embassy articles created at a time with less stringent enforcement of notability requirements, this fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- (Merge and) Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London which contains all the encyclopaedic information about the embassy. The list of ambassadors should be merged somewhere if there is an appropriate target but I haven't immediately found one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Exercise Indus Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see how this meets NEVENTCRITERIA. There are several issues. I don’t see evidence of WP:LASTING impact, or even WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and WP is not a newspaper. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - There's a WP:DIVERSE coverage of the exercise and it passes WP:NEVENT therefore the article should be kept.[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] War Wounded (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- All of the coverage was published in October 2023, so there’s no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Additionally, some of the sources are GENREL, such as Bol News. WP:109PAPERS — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can these sources be evaluated?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I would say that this event passes WP:NEVENT therefore should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikibear47, Passes WP:NEVENT on what basis? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Source assessment table:
Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for discussion of source assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- John T. Wilson (born 1861) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per WP:ATD to Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Pind Brahmanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doubts has been cast as to whether this is a place. Plotting in the coordinates, you get to a settlement Tarapur where "Pind barhaman" shows up as a school. Fallingrain.com can't be used as a sole source for a settlement. Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete one source is not enough. Xegma(talk) 19:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Vadym Nevinglovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Zeinab Norouzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Reasonably accomplished on the regional stage. Women's sports in Iran isn't overly developed. Where did you do the WP:BEFORE? Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Kenya Maeshiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Subject has no coverage whatsoever besides a trivial profile of player stats. A7 speedy deletion nomination previously rejected. Dan • ✉ 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Dan • ✉ 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify it for now and I think we should wait for until new sources added in the draftspace. Xegma(talk) 19:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- This article hasn't changed in years and the subject only played football for one season. A cursory Google search provides no sources to add to the article. I can't imagine draftifying will lead to anything new added. Dan • ✉ 20:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ian Wright (motorsport) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not pass GNG. Sources referenced and available online are mostly in passing or not reliable. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Need to add more sources. Xegma(talk) 18:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Engineering, Motorsport, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mahmut Tolon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 17:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Turkey. Kadı Message 17:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Syed Mir Ali Imam Al Mamun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The cited sources are: (1) an anonymously self-published local history page which says its source is the Bengali Wikipedia article [17] (which in its present form supports little of the promotional content here), so it is WP:CIRCULAR in addition to all of its other problems; and (2) a user-generated "royalty" website described by other editors at RSN as "cruft", a "fan site", and "clearly unreliable".
Online and offline searches in English and Bengali found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. This retired Lt. Col. does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The article serves as nothing but an attractive nuisance for those who add unsourced content. Worldbruce (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Worldbruce (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Omar Gosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article on Omar Gosh should be considered for deletion as it appears to fall short of Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies of living persons. While Omar Gosh is recognized as a YouTube personality, the article lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that provide in-depth analysis beyond passing mentions. The content primarily relies on self-published or primary sources, which do not adequately establish the subject's notability as required by Wikipedia's guidelines. Given the insufficient evidence of widespread recognition or influence, the article does not meet the criteria for a standalone entry and should be considered for deletion. Mjbmr (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, United States of America, and Florida. Mjbmr (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Well, the last AfD had three sources listed as significant, but they seem to be local in nature and more like human interest stories than anything extensive, I don't consider them terribly helpful. I can't find anything since these were published, so I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Electric Software, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources are all about products made by the company, not the company itself. I could find no secondary or tertiary sources discussing the company; it fails to meet GNG or WP:NBUSINESS. The company's products seem like they may be notable, the company itself fails notability per WP:INHERITORG. This page also appears to have been made by an undisclosed COI, as the editor who made this page has exclusively edited this article and articles about this company's software. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I couldn't find much more about this company besides old directory listings and advertisements - nothing that would establish notability independent of any of its products. Fails GNG. MaterialsPsych (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nafsika Antypas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a WP:BLP1E, making news for being the victim of a scammer/abuser. Other sources about her brand are from journals running paid promotion, e.g. vegconomist.com, or interviews (primary sources), e.g. foodnavigator-asia.com. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Food and drink. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy G4 - This is a copy of Draft:Nafsika Antypas, draftified following the last AFD, and copied to mainspace without improvement. Almost certainly sockpuppetry as well. Wikishovel (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, didn't see the previous draft, I'm okay with G4 as well. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominated for speedy, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Greece, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy G4 as per Wikishovel. Xegma(talk) 18:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- G4 isn't really valid here as the previous AFD closed as Draftify, not Delete. So, it's worth continuing the discussion here. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Northwest Airlines Flight 5 (1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS, only cited primary and tertiary sources additionally and had no lasting effects. Additionally no injuries or fatalities. Lolzer3000 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lolzer3000 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Florida. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Edward Arthur Dodwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a British man who was a senior police officer in India, and done what I can to improve the article. Sourcing is very poor, however - two brief mentions and a family announcement of his death. I think this passing mention of a Ted Dodwell is probably also him, but it doesn't give any further information to add to the article. I don't think he is notable under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, India, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- HG2 Filmworks (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The bunch of sources just made it look like they are significant if they weren’t checked on. Also what made it up to 45 source was the musical videos published on mere blogs mentioning him as the director and nothing more like he has contributed on a notable project was being discussed on the blogs. Which already fails WP:GNG. Was in surprise how the article was created by a different person from draft & move by another different person who is already blocked of a sock. But that’s by the way as the main subject is to be focused on. Gabriel (……?) 16:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Nigeria, and United States of America. Gabriel (……?) 16:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of fictional frogs and toads in animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list that appears to be a redundant fork of List of fictional frogs and toads, which already has a full section on animation. I am assuming it was initially split off due to size concerns at the time, but that no longer appears necessary. As both lists specify that the entries should be restricted solely to notable examples, when you remove the entries here that do not meet that criteria, what is left is identical to the list already present at List of fictional frogs and toads, making a separate list or any kind of merger unnecessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, and Lists. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It looks like the main article already lists the notable examples, making this an unnecessary duplicate. (No objection to a redirect if someone really thinks it's important.) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as a title that should not hold an article (per nom) but which is a reasonable {{r to section}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Clear example of WP:OLIST and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. cyberdog958Talk 20:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above nomination. No indication of notability and an unneeded split off an already dubious page in terms of notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A7, G11 (non-admin closure) AusLondonder (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Direct Textile Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Sources provided are unreliable PR websites and other corporate websites. Failed to locate other sources providing significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- GoJS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not cite any independent sources (except the Progopedia, which doesn't even mention GoJS). I was unable to find any myself. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Progopedia mentions Northwoods (which doesn't deserve its own article).
- GoJS is mentioned elsewhere, such as on modeling-languages.com:
- https://modeling-languages.com/gojs-javascript-library-build-diagrams/
- https://modeling-languages.com/javascript-drawing-libraries-diagrams/
- And others have written about it from a business use-cases perspective, eg:
- https://sub.synergycodes.com/gojs-ebook/ Simonsarris (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not enough for it to mention something associated with GoJS; notability is not inherited. The modeling-languages.com article describes it as
our software
, which strongly implies that it is not strictly independent. The ebook might be a satisfactory source (as described in WP:NCORP); I can take a closer look at it later. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not enough for it to mention something associated with GoJS; notability is not inherited. The modeling-languages.com article describes it as
- Platform-independent model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged uncited over 15 years ago and please see Talk:Platform-independent_model#Is_this_really_encylopedic? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think Platform-specific model could be bundled with this. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sand Canyon, Kern County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable location. Was AfD'ed once before, closing as Keep because of some sources in the mining literature: [18]. However, all sources cited in the last AfD are trivial mentions, and all but one of them refer to Sand Canyon as a geographic feature (a canyon), not as a community. Nothing has been updated in the article since then, and nothing else could be found. Note that there is a better-documented Sand Canyon in Los Angeles County, making it hard to find information about this place. I could also live with a merge to Loraine, California, an actual settlement nearby. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- delete Nothing has improved and there's still nothing brought forward to show that this was once a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yannick Dinane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was deprodded without comment or adding any sources. Dinane fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Even if someone explains what is in the World Soccer source it won't be enough to pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. CptViraj (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Junior World Series of Indoor Cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article survived an AfD in 2010, but since then WP:GNG has not further been established, and the article is unreferenced. A quick search reveals little coverage and nothing in depth. Fails WP:OFFCRIC and WP:GNG. AA (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG, so we don't need the article. Just because it sort of survived an AFD in 2010 (it seems to have been removed from the AFD), that isn't a reason to keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sana Sha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of an actor with no independent sources, and I am unable to find anything that would show notability. There is also no claim to notability per WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The article states that she had notable roles in Aatma The Revenge and Prema Hathiras, but there is no article about either of those movies. While we don't trust IMdB as a source , it can sometimes be used as at least an indication about the significance of a film or a particular part; according to IMdB, then, Aatma is a short film with no other people listed as cast or crew (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19496446/), while Prema Hathiras isn't even listed there, so nothing there to meet WP:NACTOR.
The article has been moved back and forth between mainspace and draftspace by its creator, and I'm not going to get into a move war trying to draftify it, when there is no indication it could become an article at this time. I think it is borderline speediable both as non-significant and as advertising, but maybe it's better to go through with an AfD.
bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
While I was writing the nomination, Ravensfire did what I should have done before nominating, and removed all the unsourced information. The claims I refer to above are visible in the article history. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Clear failure for any notability. Creator has played games moving this back and forth from draft to mainspace, deletion is appropriate at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Can't find any independent references to support claims of notability. The now-removed promotional references could not even pass WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bill Canady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a non-notable business executive. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Sources are routine announcements and press releases. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nelson Ruiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sign of notability, this was a WP:LUGSTUBS created from a database entry. No sign of notability from a search. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Venezuela. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I accidentally marked this as a cricket article when I meant boxing, sorry. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Olympics. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Jeremy Carl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Widely covered in establishment and conservative media. Thriley (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- AH Milad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a non-notable entrepreneur and author. Sources are promotional paid pieces. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Claim's of winning "UNICEF of the year 2023" which is not a thing, neither does such award exist. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Bangladesh. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think he notable, you want chek on Google 2404:1C40:5A:2CE3:1:0:C1D1:9C8B (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe AH Milad notable Efietking (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete it was deleted several times and probably created by sock. Mehedi Abedin 13:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7, G4, G5, G11 per User:Mehedi Abedin, latest of many variant spelling used by desperately self-promoting sockpuppet. Wikishovel (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- Mihai Apostol (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Neither playing in the Moldovan league or lower leagues in Netherlands give any sort of automatic notability. The only non-database source in the article is a primary source (club), and searching for his name in conjunction with clubs, I could not find a shred of reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Greece, Moldova, Netherlands, and Portugal. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- 2007 Kongolo Antonov An-32B crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth, significant nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- • Merge into An-32, the article itself is a stub and also fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE nothing much to expand upon in the An-32 category, although the entry in List of sole survivors of aviation accidents and incidents, could use some improvement to pertain the little information shown in this article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Antonov An-32. This article barely passes notability guidelines given and all of the content is mentioned inside the An-32 aircraft article under accidents and incidents section. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bellinzona Ladies Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A very small tournament that seems to get no third party coverage. Even a plain google search just reveals primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Tennis, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep This is a womens Challenger level event that does get outside publicity. Whether its a 2021 event, or Tennis 24, or Tennis Point magazine on youtube. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- All these 3 sources are primary. We need third-party sources, that is not connected to tennis. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- A source would only be a primary source if it was directly connected to the event organisers or the ITF, not merely because the source is a tennis-focussed source. Iffy★Chat -- 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources are not primary sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not regard a youtube clip of an event as a suitable, reliable source. As per WP:SPORTSEVENT, " To be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers)". The other 2 sources fails that. Especially one being just a listing of results. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That applies for individual matches, not for leagues or tournaments. Iffy★Chat -- 09:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:EVENT could also apply here. ": An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This small tournament definitely fails that. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- That applies for individual matches, not for leagues or tournaments. Iffy★Chat -- 09:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not regard a youtube clip of an event as a suitable, reliable source. As per WP:SPORTSEVENT, " To be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers)". The other 2 sources fails that. Especially one being just a listing of results. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Dawson Gurley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article on Dawson Gurley should be considered for deletion as it appears to lack notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. The subject, while known as a YouTube personality, does not meet the criteria for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that provide substantial analysis beyond trivial mentions. Much of the content is based on self-published sources or primary sources, which do not establish the depth of notability required for a standalone Wikipedia article. Without significant coverage from independent, reputable sources, the article does not meet the standards for inclusion and should be deleted. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, Arizona, and Internet. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: This is decent [19]. The rest are about an impersonator of his that was banned from an arena [20], [21]. Having an "impostor" pretend to be you with coverage in the Washington Post and Huff Post implies you are notable? I'd argue yes. I mean, there are no Oaktree_b impersonators, but this person seems to have several mentions of them in RS, so he's famously famous. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Meaning if you're famous enough to have people imitate/pretend to be you in order to get stuff, I'd say you're notable enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Galway Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable (and short-lived) amateur sports team. In terms of WP:CLUB and WP:SIGCOV, I can find no independent/reliable/significant coverage of the team's activities during its relatively-short lifespan. A WP:BEFORE search returns less-than-independent webpages like this on the IAFL website (which contains no information that can be used to expand/support the article). Or ROTM local sports news coverage like this (which is also of limited use in expanding the article or establishing notability). It is hard to overlook that the article was created by an apparent COI/SPA contributor, with a quasi-promotional intent, before the org/team had contested even a single competitive game. (This seems such a clear-cut case that I had planned on PRODing. But I note it had already been PRODed. Before being dePRODed as part of a series of (yet more) promotional edits.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete as the amateur and not significant sports team. Significant coverage not present so it makes clear not notable page. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Healthera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
it does not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Stockly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nicole Sahin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are most business news than BLP sources. Routine coverage. No indication of significance. scope_creepTalk 07:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Do you mind if I ask for clarification about why it's been nominated for deletion? Is it because many of the references also refer to her company, rather than just her personally? I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) that because she is the founder and CEO of a global HR company which has seen rapid growth post COVID, and the founder of the industry on which its based (employer of record industry which allows companies to easily hire people all over the globe), that her notability would be inherently tied to the company's performance and notability. I'd be grateful for your clarification and guidance. Cheers, Kate. KWriteReturn (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @KWriteReturn: This is a WP:BLP and consensus that is long established states that that person is not the company. Notabilty is not inherited from any other entity and there is nothing here to indicate why this person is notable. Looking at the first seven, in fact the 14 references. These are a mix of routine company news about employment, non-bylined paid-for articles, press-releases, funding, merging, expansion and acquisition news. It is all routine news. There is no WP:SECONDARY coverage to verify per WP:V that she is notable. It states in the WP:BLP policy "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". There is nothing here. Nothing. scope_creepTalk 06:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sofia Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 07:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Embassy of Eritrea, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD tag removed due to concern about removing "national embassies without a discussion". Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources. Effectively just a directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Eritrea–United States relations: No WP:RS sources I found from a quick Google News. Ping me if anyone finds one Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Jasdeep Singh Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Falls under WP:BLP1E, as the subject is notable for only one event. Also, all four sources appear to be part of a press release, as they were all published on the same date, 2 September 2024, mostly by news desks with similar content. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Notable for only one event as suggested by almost all of the third party reliable sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Tariq Hussain Keen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:NPOL, a middle-ranking party bureaucrat and failed 2014 candidate. If he wins in this year's election he'd be notable, so the article was draftified once, but then immediately recreated in main space. The only coverage I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was routine coverage of his candidacy, and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Wikishovel (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete not ready for mainspace and also exists in draftspace. Xegma(talk) 04:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Xegma, under what CSD criteria? Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- R2 CSD criteria. Xegma(talk) 07:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Xegma, under what CSD criteria? Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no WP:RELIABILITY, Most of the sources given here are their YouTube channel links, sources are self-published, clearly fails WP:GNG. Thank you! Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, and Kerala. Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: It is a small group of people who are ex-Muslims in Kerala, Sources are provided mostly YouTube links, without sources significant socks. An online group that conducts debates and uploads them through a YouTube channel. In Kerala, there are "'Ex-Christians'" and "'Ex-Hindus'" like this. But none of them have an article and they all belong to the category of rationalist Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham article is included in this, it doesn't need a page, very few people are involved in this, they are a small group of non-religious people, currently in Kerala, people who come from other religions (Ex-religions) and are non-religious, it can be merged into this page. It can be Delete or merge into a page Ex-Muslims ~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Atheism and Islam. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- SDM Law College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- SDM Institute for Management Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Voyageurs Area Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant use of Wikipedia as if it's an extension of their website and this doesn't meet WP:NCORP. That it's likely incorporated as "non profit" and their pesence in MN, WI and MN is not within the intentions of WP:NONPROFIT. Graywalls (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Companies, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Graywalls (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There are a lot of articles for councils: List of councils (Boy Scouts of America). Councils are run by volunteers in BSA and they usually are done based on region so I don't know where even the WP:NONPROFIT argument applies (if it even did). The more important thing is WP:N and if it doesn't hold, I would be more towards a redirect to the list provided or any Scouting-related page. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- According to the article, it sounds like the council itself is in the process of shutting down and their territory is being merged into other councils. So, the probability that the council will continue to have any significant long-term web presence is low. While the article does have some problems, the proposal does not indicate why this council would be less notable than others, many of which have independent pages. Wikipedia has plenty of pages dedicated to organizations that no longer exist, including several about defunct BSA councils, so while this organization may not serve people in the future, it would have met WP:N standards during its period of operation. Within certain communities of interest, such as Scout Patch Collectors and Scouting historians, every council is notable enough to get a few pages in things like Scout patch identification guidebooks. Although many of the sources linked are from the council, there are already a few independent sources (but more are needed). I oppose deletion, although I would not object to significant edits to address the issues of neutrality, limited references, etc. ToddDTaft (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pages about organizations/companies that fail to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP don't qualify to have a standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- and there's room for merging/redirecting as articles such as Scouting in Minnesota and Scouting in Wisconsin exist (as a valid alternative to deletion) – The Grid (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @The Grid:, Yep, merge was my first thought, however being that there's no single suitable target being it is relevant to MN, WI and MI, and the article unambiguously failing NORG, it leaves deletion as a reasonable option. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- and there's room for merging/redirecting as articles such as Scouting in Minnesota and Scouting in Wisconsin exist (as a valid alternative to deletion) – The Grid (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pages about organizations/companies that fail to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP don't qualify to have a standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- According to the article, it sounds like the council itself is in the process of shutting down and their territory is being merged into other councils. So, the probability that the council will continue to have any significant long-term web presence is low. While the article does have some problems, the proposal does not indicate why this council would be less notable than others, many of which have independent pages. Wikipedia has plenty of pages dedicated to organizations that no longer exist, including several about defunct BSA councils, so while this organization may not serve people in the future, it would have met WP:N standards during its period of operation. Within certain communities of interest, such as Scout Patch Collectors and Scouting historians, every council is notable enough to get a few pages in things like Scout patch identification guidebooks. Although many of the sources linked are from the council, there are already a few independent sources (but more are needed). I oppose deletion, although I would not object to significant edits to address the issues of neutrality, limited references, etc. ToddDTaft (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please consider the alternatives to deletion like Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend keep, because this BSA council is no less notable than the hundreds of other councils that also have wikipedia articles. Furthermore, although much of the original material in the article (which Graywalls has already deleted without waiting for the results of this discussion) was poorly sourced, that is more appropriate for a Template:Primary sources to be added (to encourage other editors to contribute to the article) than a deletion request (which only discourages others from contributing). Johnson487682 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Contributions based primarily on the website of the organization, personal websites should be discouraged. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a good justification to retain notability failing articles. As a matter of fact, there are so many articles in BSA topic area that are written essentailly from BSA operated sites, personal websites and blogs that they should be merged, redirected or deleted. If it was only in Minnesota, re-direct to Scouting in Minnesota is an easy one, but given it spans over three states, the target is not an easy pick. Graywalls (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The content was contrary to policy because any Wikipedia article must not be primarily based on self-published sources. See WP:ABOUTSELF (the five conditions are cumulative). The removal was necessary, and the AfD being in progress does not matter at all. —Alalch E. 10:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see no support for Deletion right now. While a Redirect requires a single target article, articles can be Merged to multiple articles so I don't see a problem there. However, just because, other, similar articles exist is not justification to keep this one if notability can not be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirectto List of councils (Boy Scouts of America) per nom. After my search for sources per WP:BEFORE I could not find any with something resembling significant coverage, let alone WP:ORGDEPTH-grade significant coverage, and all of the reliable sources I could find were local reports on mundane affairs such as the closing of a camp or local youth receiving scouting awards. WP:NCORP fail, can't provide legitimate encyclopedic coverage of this topic. Interested readers should look elsewhere for information, such as by visiting the organization's website.—Alalch E. 10:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)- Scouting in Minnesota#Voyageurs Area Council is a better redirect target. —Alalch E. 11:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't even notice when I looked. My vote is Redirect/merge to Scouting in Minnesota#Voyageurs Area Council per Alalch E. and my comments above. If anything for the nominator, the self published do needs to be removed which can easily be done with the merge. – The Grid (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Either redirect or merge is fine by me. I'm not sure if the content should be merged and if the camps and number of children are such due information in the target article, and those numbers change year after year, but I don't take a position on this.—Alalch E. 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.:, I see no salvageable, reliably, secondary sourceable material that would be WP:DUE to address in other articles, so while I prefer the first suggested list as the target, I'm not entirely opposed to just re-directing to something. Even if deleted, since there's no preserving worthy contents, creating a new re-direct later is no frill. Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Let's postulate: If there is suitably sourced prose content about this topic in a section of an article, that article should be the target of the redirect, and the list entry can link to that content as the locus of most direct coverage on Wikipedia. The question is then: Seeing how such content is currently not present in Scouting in Minnesota, should it be present? This kind of breaks down into two further questions: (1) Is content about individual councils a usual type of content in Scouting in X articles, that is presumably generally seen as due, and (2) are there sources to support any prose about this particular council. The answers to both 1 and 2 are yes: This type of content is absolutely usual (look at any Scouting in [X US state] article), and such sources do exist for this particular council because I've found them and have added them to the article which is the subject of this AfD. This suggests that the target should be Scouting in Minnesota, while the list entry should link to that, and so the only remaining question for me is whether it's only the sources, which do confirm the existence and the "jurisdiction" of the council, as already stated in "Scouting in Minnesota", should be brought over (just copying the references does not require a merge outcome), or if any content should actually be copied (that does suggest a merge outcome). —Alalch E. 20:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Added the refs, see Special:Diff/1244053906. —Alalch E. 20:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Let's postulate: If there is suitably sourced prose content about this topic in a section of an article, that article should be the target of the redirect, and the list entry can link to that content as the locus of most direct coverage on Wikipedia. The question is then: Seeing how such content is currently not present in Scouting in Minnesota, should it be present? This kind of breaks down into two further questions: (1) Is content about individual councils a usual type of content in Scouting in X articles, that is presumably generally seen as due, and (2) are there sources to support any prose about this particular council. The answers to both 1 and 2 are yes: This type of content is absolutely usual (look at any Scouting in [X US state] article), and such sources do exist for this particular council because I've found them and have added them to the article which is the subject of this AfD. This suggests that the target should be Scouting in Minnesota, while the list entry should link to that, and so the only remaining question for me is whether it's only the sources, which do confirm the existence and the "jurisdiction" of the council, as already stated in "Scouting in Minnesota", should be brought over (just copying the references does not require a merge outcome), or if any content should actually be copied (that does suggest a merge outcome). —Alalch E. 20:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.:, I see no salvageable, reliably, secondary sourceable material that would be WP:DUE to address in other articles, so while I prefer the first suggested list as the target, I'm not entirely opposed to just re-directing to something. Even if deleted, since there's no preserving worthy contents, creating a new re-direct later is no frill. Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Either redirect or merge is fine by me. I'm not sure if the content should be merged and if the camps and number of children are such due information in the target article, and those numbers change year after year, but I don't take a position on this.—Alalch E. 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I like the idea of redirecting to List of councils. The latter, not so much simply because it just so happened to be in there. Graywalls (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't even notice when I looked. My vote is Redirect/merge to Scouting in Minnesota#Voyageurs Area Council per Alalch E. and my comments above. If anything for the nominator, the self published do needs to be removed which can easily be done with the merge. – The Grid (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Scouting in Minnesota#Voyageurs Area Council is a better redirect target. —Alalch E. 11:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Daniel B. Cid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough in-depth references for a WP:BIO, suggest redirecting the article to his notable creation OSSEC. Already done that, but was reverted. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Elvish Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability issue. Winning one show and couple of music videos are not enough. Xegma(talk) 05:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Television, Internet, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the 50 ish refs do make the subject pass WP:NBASIC, could you specify the guideline that you are using to determine if they are notable or not? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep notability for WP:GNG is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that is already demonstrated by the references in the article including many newspaper articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, almost half of the refs are about Bigg Boss OTT. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 18:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Clearly appears to be the subject of much third-party coverage from reviewing the sources. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to identify which sources provide SIGCOV helping to establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 are about this person, as are most of the other sources used in the article. I think we have enough to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bowie Jane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [22][23][24][25] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we'll see more participation. Also, to the nominator, in the future, please provide a more comprehensive deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources I added.
Sources:
- Gorman, Brigid O (23 April 2013). "Barrister's a secret singing sensation". Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved 1 September 2024. The article notes: "Barrister by day; sexy singer by night. That's the life that has been led by Melbourne barrister, and now pop sensation, Bowie Jane... ... The songstress, whose story has received international press coverage in recent days, is a practising criminal barrister in Melbourne, but she managed to keep her musical pastime a secret from colleagues and clients – until now at least."
- "Meet Bowie Jane". VoyageLA (Interview). 5 April 2021. The interview notes: "I'm an Australian who has lived in Los Angeles for six years and I’m loving it!" "I was living a very secret double life until my story was exposed by the Daily Mail in the UK which was crazy at the time – I was front page of every major paper in the UK and on every radio show. My double life is that I'm a criminal trial attorney having worked in money laundering and tax fraud but am also a professional DJ singer-songwriter! Basically, I would work as a lawyer during the day, then rip off my conservative clothes and get on stage at night. The lawyers didn't know I was a singer and the musicians didn’t know I was a lawyer. Once my story became public knowledge around the world, I quit the law and am now a full-time musician. I've been performing since I was a kid and started out in musical theater and madrigal groups believe it or not! I think that's where I first fell in love with harmonies. I then really wanted to be in a band so started doing acoustic duo work and then moved into the band arena, started songwriting and then releasing in the UK and touring. ... I love revving up a crowd!"
- Doreian, Robyn (25 August 2013). "All out, all change". Lifestyle. The Sun-Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. p. 12. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
While studying law and commerce at Deakin University, she played covers at restaurants in an acoustic duo. Once qualified, the flip side to courtrooms was laser-lit gigs at venues like Transport, at Melbourne's Federation Square, where she blasted her energetic originals. And in 2013, she sang at the Australian Open tennis tournament. The moniker Bowie Jane came from her nickname - ever since she was a child, she's worn glittery bows in her hair. It was also how she kept her alter ego hidden from colleagues and clients. ... In March, she shelved four years of law practice and moved to London to become a star.
The article notes: "But for Bowie Jane (her stage name), law was an obvious career. "My brain has always been lawyer-ish. When I was 12, I had written contracts with my parents stating who would pay for what in my upbringing." ... While studying law and commerce at Deakin University, she played covers at restaurants in an acoustic duo. Once qualified, the flip side to courtrooms was laser-lit gigs at venues like Transport, at Melbourne's Federation Square, where she blasted her energetic originals. And in 2013, she sang at the Australian Open tennis tournament. The moniker Bowie Jane came from her nickname - ever since she was a child, she's worn glittery bows in her hair. It was also how she kept her alter ego hidden from colleagues and clients. ... In March, she shelved four years of law practice and moved to London to become a star. ... Jane now lives in a share house in Camden. Meetings with management, publishers and performances cram her days. She has also been doing radio interviews to promote her second single, Bad Boy."
- "Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 13 October 2018. Retrieved 1 September 2024. The Billboard chart notes: "Busted Bowie Jane – 21 LAST WEEK – 21 PEAK POSITION – 6 WEEKS ON CHART"
I also found this unreliable law profile source, with her real name:
- "Miranda Ball". Meldrum's List. Retrieved 1 September 2024. The law profile notes: "Miranda's experience is extensive having run high profile White Collar Crime Litigations as both a Partner then Barrister. Her recent work includes the Bernie Madoff litigations in Bermuda & the UK, Operation Wickenby, Australian Crime Commission investigations and examinations, Special Leave Applications to the High Court of Australia, Legal Professional Privilege Claims, Constitutional Challenges, Children's Court hearings, Australian Taxation Office litigations/investigations and Coronial Inquests."
There is sufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, plus the sources identified by @Ednabrenze to allow the subject to pass the general notability guideline, requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 06:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to get a second opinion on these recently located sources. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)- Keep: I've looked at the first three articles found by @Bas/TechGeek105 and they all provide significant coverage of the subject in my opinion. The Sun-Herald one looks more like a traditional newspaper; Lawyers Weekly and VoyageLA both say they have editorial oversight. The article itself is much better in terms of citations and content compared to when it was proposed for AfD. Nnev66 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Dennis Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article remains mostly bare that does not pass GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rhode Island. Skynxnex (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak DeleteThere are 25 sources for him on Newspapers.com but they are just passing references or him being quoted about another issue. If someone finds other material please ping me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)- Redirect to Lynch v. Donnelly, it's the most notable thing he's known for. I did go back and try to find some other sources but wasn't able to. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, Lynch was the defendant of the Supreme Court Case Lynch v. Donnelly and was honored by the Rhode Island General Assembly for his service in a delegation to China and his work to redevlop the City of Pawtucket. Furthermore, he was director of Rhode Island's Division of Purchases and served in "numerous other" posts for the State Government. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Lynch v. Donnelly. The claims stated by the commenter above me are not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee inclusion in an encyclopedia — "director of a state Division of Purchases" is not an WP:NPOL-passing job, for example, and being honored by the legislature isn't an instant inclusion freebie either. So if his actual strongest notability claim is that he was involved in a noteworthy legal case, then he can be redirected to our article about the legal case, but he doesn't get his own standalone article as a separate topic from the case without a heck of a lot more substance and sourcing than has been offered so far. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think this discussion could use a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect as above. He appears notable only for the legal case. AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ruben Katsobashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According to the recently published book Terrible Humans by Patrick Alley, a co-founder of the anti-corruption NGO Global Witness, this page is a wholly false biography. The book, in the chapter 'The Gatekeeper', states that it was created as part of a scheme establishing a network of false, or shell, companies designed to enable Dan Gertler and others to evade sanctions imposed by the United States Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control in December 2017 for their role in 'opaque and corrupt mining and oil deals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo'. Katsobashvili is also mentioned on the EN:WP page for Interactive Energy, another Gertler-related company involved in the scheme. Further details available if required.14GTR (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep for failing to assert a valid deletion rationale. Clearly Global Witness has decided to make an issue of the truth of his biography, and their claims have been reported by others. And no doubt you find their claims and that of their founder credible. But an NGO being unhappy with a Wikipedia article doesn't constitute a deletion rationale.He does get press coverage (some of which includes the allegations by Global Witness) like [26], [27], [28]. So it seems likely that the article passes WP:GNG (and you certainly haven't made the argument it doesn't).I'm not trying to defend this guy, or advocating for keeping an article if it's just a bunch of lies. But if you have reliable sources demonstrating that parts of the article are untrue, wouldn't the appropriate thing to be to add those claims to the article? Then we get a full picture rather than just taking an approach that results in Wikipedia containing no information about this person. Oblivy (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Georgia (country), and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Abhishek Malhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Runner up of the show and doing lots of music video is not enough for notability. Xegma(talk) 04:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- He is not only a runner up of a show, but a very popular indian youtuber too. Columbidae5 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Central Library, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no non-primary sources found. Sohom (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify it for now, need to add more independent sources. Xegma(talk) 04:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Education, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Singapore women's national under-18 softball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NORG due to a lack of secondary sourcing about the team itself. The only source is primary and does not cover the team itself in any event. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Singapore. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Lacks significant coverage. Does not meet notability guidelines. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Like not meet notability and WP:GNG 🌀TyphoonAmpil🌀 (💬 - 📝) 07:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- Germany women's national under-18 softball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any sources suggesting this subject meets the WP:NORG or WP:GNG. The only sources currently in the article are WP:PRIMARY and are not about the team in any event. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The only references for the article are official results from International Softball Federation, without any other significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This article fails to meet WP:GNG. ~~~~ Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- National Anthem of the Republic of the Rif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It does not appear to meet GNG and I don't believe there are guidelines for national anthems themselves. Based on my search on Google and TWL I could not find any sources. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:EXIST and even that is speculative. The only thing this article accomplishes is some guesswork about how the short-lived republic probably had a national anthem but nobody really knows what it sounded like or who wrote it. Note that the audio sample used in the article is actually from the Lebanon National Anthem, which may or may not have borrowed the melody, another possibility that nobody seems to know for sure. If the Republic of Rif anthem really existed, it is lost to history and there simply is not enough reliable info for an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete 100% speculation, no sources, no information found in any source, reliable or not, that isn't traced back to WP. This is a no-brainer. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- David Folley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ARTIST and probably WP:GNG as well. The sources that I was able to verify are either insignificant coverage or not independent of the subject. I searched for other sources, but only found the artist's blog, a YouTube video, some mentions on gallery sites, and the usual social media sites. I was not able to located the article "Old Master", so I don't know how much coverage it includes. I also wasn't able to find "David Folley: Portrait of a Painter", but considering that it was published by Zap Art Promotions, I'm guessing it isn't independent and was probably created to accompany an exhibit. Overall, the subject seems to be a successful professional artist with the usual smattering of coverage in local media that you would expect. They don't, however, seem to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but I would be happy to hear other opinions. The article about their painting The Descent from the Cross (David Folley) also seems to have questionable notability, but I'll leave that discussion for another day. Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Well, someone went to prison for a rather nasty attack on a foreigner in Wales that has the same name as this fellow... That's about all I find for sourcing. No listing in the Getty ULAN [29] either. Sourcing now in the article is purely local in nature, not helping show the notability needed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment A quick search on ProQuest identifies non-trivial independent newspaper articles, including the "Old Master" coverage referenced above : [30], as well as: [31], [32], [33]. Also Art UK has a profile page: [34]. There is potential for meeting WP:NARTIST here. I've added these new citations to the article. ResonantDistortion 23:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating both Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala for deletion. Created by the same editor, they appear to be based entirely on the blog posts of one person (with very similar text) and then refbombed with sources that aren't about them.
Bundled nomination for:
- Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang
- Panglima Bandahala Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Page is a complete mess, not up to WP standard. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for your feedback regarding the articles on Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala.
- I understand the concerns raised about the sources and the structure of the articles. However, it is important to emphasize that these figures are significant historical personalities within the Bangsamoro narrative, and there are credible resources beyond the initial blog posts cited that provide detailed accounts of their lives, contributions, and the broader struggles of the Bangsamoro people. These articles aim to highlight an important part of Philippine and Islamic history that has often been neglected.
- The representation of Bangsamoro history on platforms like Wikipedia is vital for the preservation and recognition of their culture, traditions, and the ongoing struggles for identity and autonomy. The information available about Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala contributes to understanding the complexities of the Bangsamoro's past, including their resistance and leadership. These contributions deserve to be documented and made accessible as part of Wikipedia's mission to share knowledge.
- I am committed to revising and improving the articles to meet Wikipedia’s standards and address the current issues regarding source quality and notability. Ensuring that historically marginalized figures are properly represented on Wikipedia not only preserves cultural heritage but also educates a global audience about these important narratives.
- Thank you for considering these points, and I look forward to contributing to the discussion constructively.
- To address the issues raised, here are some steps we can take to improve the articles:
- Strengthen Source Quality: We can work on finding and incorporating more reliable, secondary sources that directly discuss these individuals, ensuring that the information meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and verifiability.
- Refine the Content: The articles can be reorganized and rewritten to align with Wikipedia’s style and structure standards, removing any promotional or subjective language and focusing strictly on verifiable facts.
- Expand Historical Context: Adding more historical context about the Bangsamoro struggle, the role of traditional leaders, and their impact on local and national history can provide readers with a better understanding of the significance of these figures.
- Community Collaboration: I welcome any guidance from experienced editors on how best to refine these articles. Collaborative efforts can ensure that the content is accurate, neutral, and informative.
- By improving rather than deleting these articles, we not only preserve the history and culture of the Bangsamoro people but also contribute to a more diverse and inclusive representation of global history on Wikipedia, aligning with its mission of spreading knowledge.
- Best regards,
- Suficalcaluang
- please refer to:
- https://www.scribd.com/document/508811524/WITH-THE-BRAVEST-The-Untold-Story-of-the-Sulu-Freedom-Fighters-of-World-War-II
- https://medium.com/@calhussin96/sayyid-captain-kalingalan-caluang-a-hero-of-wwii-and-champion-of-the-bangsamoro-people-53f9c0cf82d4
- for questions on the writer:
- Dr. Calingalan Hussin Caluang, MPH
- Pioneer and Founding member of SALAAM-AdZU
- Sunni, Ash’ari in Aqeeda, Shafi’i in Fiqh, Practitioner of Ilmuh Kamaasan(Bangsamoro Spirituality, Culture and Tradition)
- Lineage Father Side: Calingalan Hussin Caluang
- son of Former OIC Governor(1996) of Sulu Sayyid Sharif Al Hassan Caluang(Practitioner of Ilmuh Kamaasan, With Ijazah in the 41 Spiritual Orders/Tariqa in Sunni Islam)
- son of Sayyid Sharif Hji Yahya Caluang (Elder Brother of Sayyid Al Hussein Caluang who was the MNLF Field Marshal and MNLF Top 90)
- son of Sayyid Sharif Captain Kalingalan “Apuh Inggal” Caluang (First commander of the famed Combat Company of the Sulu Area Command and recipient of the Bronze Star Medal, Cousin of Sgt. Imam Marajukin L. Ahad, Cousin of Hj Ayyub Mammah son of Panglima Mammah son of Panglima Mangummah/Sakadudukan son of Sultan Muhammad Jamalul A’zam I)
- son of Sayyid Sharif Caluang
- son of Sayyid Sharif Panglima Bandahala (Right Hand and Relative of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II)
- son of Sayyid Sharif Satya Munuh(famed as the Awliya/Saint of Tandah Sulu,respected relative of the Sultan and also said to be the Uncle of the Sultan in his time, relative of the hero of Sabah Paduka Datu Muhammad Salleh)
- son of Sayyid Sharif Kasim/Qasim(Arab of Hadhrami Descent, tracing back his Lineage to the 7 Sunni Sufi Missionaries who brought Islam to the Philippines: Tuan Mashaykha,Shariful Hashim,Karim Makhdum, Tuan Maqbalu, Balfaki Alawi, some of the Wali Songo of Indonesia)
- Lineage Mother Side: Calingala Hussin Caluang son of Marlene Tuando Hussin daughter of Sayyid-Sharif Usman Hashim Hussin(Descendant of the Sayyid-Sharif/Salip of Patikul, related to the Sayyid-Sharif Sarajan Family)
- Note: Sharif is an Arabic title denoting descent from Imam Hassan bin Ali alayhimus salam, while Sayyid denotes descent from Imam Hussain bin Ali alayhimus salam. Both are descendants and grandsons of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
- Muqaddam Mutlaq(Authorized Representative) of the Tijaniyyah Tariqa:
- Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Dahiru Usman Bauchi
- (Grandshayh of Tijani Tariqa in Nigeria,Deputy chair of the Fatwa Committee of the Supreme Council Of Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) in Nigeria)
- Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Imam Salah El Din Al Tijani Al Hasani
- (Grandshaykh of Tijani Tariqa in Egypt, Polymath Islamic Scholar,Professor of Medicine at the Faculty Of Medicine Kasr Al Ainy of Cairo)
- Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Mouhamadou Mahy Cisse
- (Director of Studies at the African American Islamic Institute)
- Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) in teaching, transmitting, spiritual formation of the 41 Spiritual Orders(Tariqa plural:Turuq ) of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah
- Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) in the Science of Authenticating,Validating and Preserving Genealogy of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam from the Naqib al-Ashraf (نقيب الأشراف: "Office of the Overseer of the Nobles" or "Chief of the Nobles") of Turkey and Algeria
- Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi(author of Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations)
- Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Ali Gomaa(Former Grand Mufti of Egypt)
- Ø With Ijazah(Permission/ Certification) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri(Founder of Minhaj-ul-Quran International and Pakistan Awami Tehreek, author of Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings)
- Affiliated with the Naqshbandi Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Muhammad Adil Rabbani Qaddasallahu Sirrahu
- (Grandshaykh of the Naqshbandi Tariqa Worldwide )
- Affiliated with the Qadiriyya Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Hashimuddin Gaylani
- (Grandshaykh of the Qadiriyyah Tariqa Worldwide)
- Affiliated with the Shadhiliyya Tariqa and with with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Dr. Nizar Jamili
- (Shadhili Qadiri Tariqa under Shaykh As Sayyid Hazim Abu Ghazalah the Mufti and Head of the Jam-e-Yatu Darul Quran institution, Jordan)
- Affiliated with the Rifai’iyyah Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Fawaz Al-Tabaa Al-Rifai Al-Hasani
- (Member of the Association of Scholars of Ahrar al-Sham in Syria, Chairman of the Genealogy Investigation Committee in the Al-Sada Al-Ashraf Foundation in Syria)
- Affiliated with the Chishtiyyah Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Ambar Chishti
- (Chairman at Moinuddin Foundation, Ambassador of Peace at Institute of Peace and Development or INSPAD)
- Affiliated with the Muridiyyah Tariqa and with Ijazah(Permission) from Sayyiduna Shaykh Bara Falilou Mbacke Qaddasallahu Sirrahu
- (Shaykh of the Muridiyyah Tariqa, CEO of Shaykh Ahmadu Bamba Foundation, Head of Shariah Department African Institute of Islamic Finance) Suficalcaluang (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are you using AI (e.g. Chat GPT) to assist you in writing this? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for your feedback regarding the articles on Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala.
- I understand the concerns raised about the sources and the structure of the articles. However, it is important to emphasize that these figures are significant historical personalities within the Bangsamoro narrative, and there are credible resources beyond the initial blog posts cited that provide detailed accounts of their lives, contributions, and the broader struggles of the Bangsamoro people. These articles aim to highlight an important part of Philippine and Islamic history that has often been neglected.
- The representation of Bangsamoro history on platforms like Wikipedia is vital for the preservation and recognition of their culture, traditions, and the ongoing struggles for identity and autonomy. The information available about Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala contributes to understanding the complexities of the Bangsamoro's past, including their resistance and leadership. These contributions deserve to be documented and made accessible as part of Wikipedia's mission to share knowledge.
- I am committed to revising and improving the articles to meet Wikipedia’s standards and address the current issues regarding source quality and notability. Ensuring that historically marginalized figures are properly represented on Wikipedia not only preserves cultural heritage but also educates a global audience about these important narratives.
- Thank you for considering these points, and I look forward to contributing to the discussion constructively.
- To address the issues raised, here are some steps we can take to improve the articles:
- Strengthen Source Quality: We can work on finding and incorporating more reliable, secondary sources that directly discuss these individuals, ensuring that the information meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and verifiability.
- Refine the Content: The articles can be reorganized and rewritten to align with Wikipedia’s style and structure standards, removing any promotional or subjective language and focusing strictly on verifiable facts.
- Expand Historical Context: Adding more historical context about the Bangsamoro struggle, the role of traditional leaders, and their impact on local and national history can provide readers with a better understanding of the significance of these figures.
- Community Collaboration: I welcome any guidance from experienced editors on how best to refine these articles. Collaborative efforts can ensure that the content is accurate, neutral, and informative.
- By improving rather than deleting these articles, we not only preserve the history and culture of the Bangsamoro people but also contribute to a more diverse and inclusive representation of global history on Wikipedia, aligning with its mission of spreading knowledge.
- Best regards,
- Suficalcaluang Suficalcaluang (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this long wall of text is trying to explain, but doesn't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
(contribs) 03:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Started to review it. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 06:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC and seems to be based on a blog post with no sourcing. cyberdog958Talk 06:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not more than a promotion of someone's grandfather on Wikipedia. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fully non-notable, and it's very clear that the article creator had some LLM help with the TLDR above and in the article. Nate • (chatter) 16:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete As Nate says, this is some obvious LLM stuff (the bullet points), same with whatever was posted on Talk:Panglima Bandahala. Defenitely non-notable. The editor's name suggests a WP:COI. win8x (talking | spying) 21:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I also will add the potential of WP:COI and the fact that the article is using various WP:PEACOCK wordings Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Zero coverage of this individual, nothing terribly notable either about what I can see, just a soldier doing his duty. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien, this AFD is not correctly structured like a bundled nomination and the other articles you just list without any proper formatting will not be included in the closure. Please review the instructions at WP:AFD on how to make a nomination of multiple articles in you want to make a correct bundled nomination in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. Until the process changes to make bundling simpler and more intuitive—or until someone adds a bundle option to Twinkle or the NPP tool—I think I'll just list things individually from now on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Time dilation creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFRINGE. I find no notice of this by WP:FRIND sources. Only creationists seem interested enough to comment. Wikipedia really is WP:NOT for discussing every flight-of-fancy that a creationist has about how to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific facts. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Astronomy, and Biology. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|✉ 09:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines, which would be provided by significant coverage in non-crackpot sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per WP:FRINGE
creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed.
Nom admits this is a religious, not scientific topic, and yet proposes to apply scientific article criteria to it, making this nomination completely erroneous and hence eligible for speedy keep per SK#3. The religious sources are sufficient and appropriate (independent, etc.) for GNG to be satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to
Notable perspectives
and statesthe fact that claims from [e.g. creationist] perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed.
The article presents zero evidence that either mainstream theologians nor mainstream scientists have even heard of this 'perspective', never mind bothered trying to address it. The only non-creationist source currently cited in the article doesn't even bother to describe the 'perspective' in any detail, instead mentioning "time dilation" in passing in a single sentence in a section on "Examples of Pseudoscience". [35] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC) - Did you read the article? In what way is this article describing the creation of the world on a purely religious basis? Are you claiming that Russell Humphreys believes that time dilation is some sort of theological allegory?! jps (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's literally using Christian-themed sources, 6 and 7 in particular. Christianity is still a religion... That's what the person was explaining. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to
- Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- To add to the above, the suggestion that the religious sources being cited are 'independent' is both questionable and irrelevant, since they clearly aren't reliable sources for anything but the beliefs of their own authors regarding an obscure theory. Nothing is cited that establishes that this particular pseudoscientific hypothesis is even significant within creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I stripped out the science WP templates from the talk page as being non-relevant. The stub template was changed from cosmology to creationism. Beyond that I have no particular preference; it's pure pseudoscience so astronomy isn't all that relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks notability in RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It should be kept in mind that the primary focus of the article is not scientific, but religious. It is a theological doctrine more than serious science. Thus it should be viewed with the criteria of a religious article. I did not intend to promote this thing when creating the article and I did not intend to promote fringe theories, but I thought that the article should be there to represent different religious doctrines. And as someone else already noted, WP:FRINGE reads:
creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed.
Thus the point of the original deletion request does not seem to be valid. As a religious doctrine, there seems to be just enough coverage for it. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't understand what is religious and what is not is not our responsibility. Science is testable under controlled, repeatable conditions; this is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Congratulations, you have just discovered pseudoscience. As for what is or isn't religious, I have a degree in anthropology, and accordingly could write an entire dissertation on why trying to divide things into the religious and the non-religious is a fools errand. Fortunately though, that is unnecessary, since Wikipedia doesn't take such questions into account when dismissing as non-notable obscure proposals regarding time dilation and the origins of the universe only discussed in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- You realize you just ceded the point that this is a religious topic, right? That makes your critique of the sources as "crackpot" irrelevant and voids your !vote: the sources in the article may not be appropriate for a scientific discourse, but there's nothing obviously wrong with them as religious sources. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are reliable sources--torchbearers, really--for the literalist Genesis/YEC religious perspective, so notability is met unless this is entirely a non-religious topic, which you have just ceded you cannot definitively assess. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- You now seem to be claiming that the mere fact that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis have written about something makes it inherently notable. That is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Religious content can be crackpot. For example, this content. jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- You realize you just ceded the point that this is a religious topic, right? That makes your critique of the sources as "crackpot" irrelevant and voids your !vote: the sources in the article may not be appropriate for a scientific discourse, but there's nothing obviously wrong with them as religious sources. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are reliable sources--torchbearers, really--for the literalist Genesis/YEC religious perspective, so notability is met unless this is entirely a non-religious topic, which you have just ceded you cannot definitively assess. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Congratulations, you have just discovered pseudoscience. As for what is or isn't religious, I have a degree in anthropology, and accordingly could write an entire dissertation on why trying to divide things into the religious and the non-religious is a fools errand. Fortunately though, that is unnecessary, since Wikipedia doesn't take such questions into account when dismissing as non-notable obscure proposals regarding time dilation and the origins of the universe only discussed in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't understand what is religious and what is not is not our responsibility. Science is testable under controlled, repeatable conditions; this is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. There's nothing to indicate that this is an independent 'theory' in its own right rather than just an epicycle or fudge factor to try to get creationism to fit the observed facts. Could be appropriately and adequately covered here. Brunton (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would be fine with moving the contents to another article if the topic is deemed not worthy of a separate article by a consensus. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's nonsense. If there's verifiable content--and there is--an appropriate merger is a perfectly valid ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- What "verifiable content" is there? The fantasies of Young Earth Creationists that no one else even bothers to notice? jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's nonsense. If there's verifiable content--and there is--an appropriate merger is a perfectly valid ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. There is literally a single WP:RS. That means no significant coverage, as in not notable, and that in fact it’s . We have long used WP:FRINGE to get rid of essays and pages that are little more than gee-whiz trivial nonsense, hey look at this kooky little idea. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I am sorry if I misjudged the worthiness of the topic to be on Wikipedia when I created it, I did not intend to promote fringe theories. If I was wrong, then it can just be deleted. I thought that since it is a religious topic and I was able to find multiple religious sources about it, then it could be worth its own article, but I may have been mistaken about their worthiness on such a topic. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- You don't need to apologize. WP:FRINGE is hard to get right especially as there are often sources that show up about fringe topics which superficially look reasonable (and might be in less, let's say, controversial areas). The general principle that I find works well is that we can have articles on fringe subjects when they are noticed by people who are not convinced that the fringe idea in question is necessarily correct, but where it gets confusing is when you have internecine disputes among fringe claimants so it looks like you have "independent analysis" in the sources when instead you are just looking at different flavors of fringe. Keeping topics out of Wikipedia for which sourcing cannot follow the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding is one of the better solutions we've arrived at to keep the integrity of the reference work high. The alternative is a free-for-all. jps (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Except that this isn't FRINGE. It's religious. It has "creationism" right there in the title. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- You don't need to apologize. WP:FRINGE is hard to get right especially as there are often sources that show up about fringe topics which superficially look reasonable (and might be in less, let's say, controversial areas). The general principle that I find works well is that we can have articles on fringe subjects when they are noticed by people who are not convinced that the fringe idea in question is necessarily correct, but where it gets confusing is when you have internecine disputes among fringe claimants so it looks like you have "independent analysis" in the sources when instead you are just looking at different flavors of fringe. Keeping topics out of Wikipedia for which sourcing cannot follow the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding is one of the better solutions we've arrived at to keep the integrity of the reference work high. The alternative is a free-for-all. jps (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Its fringe, even for creationism. And it isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.
Emphasis mine. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)- Yes, I've already read that. And quoted it above. Where I pointed out that "mainstream theologians and scientists" have said absolutely nothing on this topic. Which is why it is fringe, why it isn't notable, and why an appropriate encyclopaedic article cannot be written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It bases articles on secondary sources, removed from the subject itself. Not on a few primary sources arguing the toss about pseudoscientific hokum amongst themselves. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability requirements. Notability is demonstrated through coverage in sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let it go, man. Your ridiculous misunderstanding is clearly not the consensus understanding of our community. If you want to change our rules, start a conversation elsewhere. jps (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- And yet, while I've disengaged, several others have come along and agreed with my perspective. I do not think the consensus is what you think it is. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Its fringe, even for creationism. And it isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies or Delete, i don't know if you can redirect a maybe plausible search term to an article without mentioning in the target. Struggling to find even that much. fiveby(zero) 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- redirect to young Earth creationism, which this is a minor variant off. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect: While fringe hypotheses can be notable, there isn't enough coverage of this one in WP:RS to warrant a separate article. Any content from this article that's up to standard should be merged/transcluded into one of the other articles on creationism. 0xchase (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies and mention it by name there since the it is the "relativistic effects" mentioned. This comes up in teaching astronomy classes and there is a source:
- Bobrowsky, Matthew (2005). "Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales". Astronomy Education Review. 4 (1): 95–118. doi:10.3847/AER2005007.
- StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies, see no reason it can’t or wouldn’t be mentioned there. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's the correct solution (otherwise Keep). It's obviously creationist claptrap, but that's not a reason to delete it, as Wikipedia shouldn't be the guardian of scientific orthodoxy. Athel cb (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that the term "time dilation creationism" is used enough to make a redirect necessary. Googling it brings up hardly any hits, several of which seem to originate with the article here. It doesn't seem to be a thing. Brunton (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's the correct solution (otherwise Keep). It's obviously creationist claptrap, but that's not a reason to delete it, as Wikipedia shouldn't be the guardian of scientific orthodoxy. Athel cb (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Young_Earth_creationism#View_of_the_Bible as a parallel subsection as Interpretations_of_Genesis. The title is a highly specialized jargon that is exclusively related to the field of creationism, and as the article itself claims, it “is a form of the Young Earth creationism”. Given the current shortness of the article, a reader would frequently click back and forth between this and other pages related to creationism for a better understanding. It’s actually easier for readers if the short article be merged with a most relevant and more comprehensive article. Nihonjinatny (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: It's not clear to be relevant as a standalone idea to merit being talked about. And besides, the only criticism is from other creationists, the article still lacks a mention to the mainstream scientific ideas. And for those saying that "this is religion, not science", that distinction is only relevant on how we write the article. Notability, if we should have an article to begin with, is unconcerned by that. Neither religious nor scientific topics are automatically exempt from the notability guideline just because of their topic. Cambalachero (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect/merge if an appropriate target can be found. Current coverage is not sufficient and I am unable to locate additional coverage which would be either. Not seeing any pressing reasons to believe that such coverage does exist either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Two different Redirect/Merge target articles are being proposed, would there be any consenus on this point? This might be a valid search term.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The only RS I'd consider is 2, the Proceedings, and that's a big "if". Creation.com or Answers from genesis don't strike me as RS, and I don't find anything else that we can use to describe this phenomenon. Gscholar of course has nothing about this, so I'm not sure what we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: If we must !merge, the creationist cosmologies would be my choice... I don't even think this warrants more than a brief mention there. Deletion is still my choice. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:FRINGE seems to establish that things like creationism should be evaluated for notability on both a religious and scientific basis. That does not mean they are exempt from the guideline. The only reliable independent source is the Stephen Law chapter on the epistemology of pseudoscience which mentions this in a single sentence as an example of an argument a creationist might make. With respect to those who've suggested a merge, there simply is not anything that meets notability to merge here. Chaste Krassley (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not a noteworthy idea in the annals of pseudoscientific ideas. Hanging onto the page as a redirect would be inventing a term where none has been established to exist; "time dilation" is a term that creationists have occasionally invoked to try and make science go away, but time dilation creationism is not a distinct version of creationism. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Social value (definition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOTADICTIONARY and maybe WP:N. Also, the entire article seems to be written by ChatGPT. It should at most be a section in Value (ethics and social sciences) SecretSpectre (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SecretSpectre (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY and doesn't seem to be a notable topic outside of that. If we were to delete all the AI junk, we would have no article. C F A 💬 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge relevant material into Value (ethics and social sciences) and delete. Wikipedia does need some coverage of "social value" because of the term's usage in UK legislation and public sector practice. There is some defining information on "social value", "social value requirements", and "social value clauses" in the Welsh government's guidance document at https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/pdf-versions/2023/4/4/1681394730/procurement-guidance-on-social-value-clauses-community-benefits.pdf. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing of value to merge. The entire article is AI-generated nonsense. C F A 💬 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Looks like a dictionary definition. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of Czech Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, plain logic
Logic is failed because this is a largely a list of places that Czech Airlines wasn't flying to in February 2024, as is indicated by the overwhelming majority of them being listed as "terminated". Czech Airlines only flew to four destinations in February 2024, all of which are already mentioned on the Czech Airlines page, making this page redundant. Anyone asserting that these "terminated" destinations are of historical interest needs to show historical sourcing for that (i.e., historical journal, history book etc.) - Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own historical research about where an airline used to fly.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services"
. It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely sourced to old timetables published by the airline (e.g., this one), or to the company website, or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage or local-news failing WP:AUD. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present nor could I find any. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Czech Republic. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep/merge It continues to be false that this falls under NOTCATLOGUE, as this is not used as a resource for conducting business, particularly if they're about to cease conducting business! The mere fact that people can be informed about the company's operations does not make it a business resource, nor are products and services broadly forbidden. A basic list of two countries and four continents is not a replacement of the information. The article needs more sources, but there is adequate coverage of the airline's operations to include its destinations here or in the main article. A link being dead does not mean the fact itself is impossible to verify or the whole article must be deleted. Listing former destination is not indiscrimination, but that could call for modifications rather than complete deletion. Reywas92Talk 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- This airline literally only flew to four destinations
"As of February 2024"
. What is the point of listing places it possibly used to fly to at some point, but didn't fly to in Feb 2024, based on original research in primary sources? If the answer is "because of historical importance", then where are the historians covering this topic? PS - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Malta destinations which recently closed as delete, which also covered an airline whose destinations were all "terminated", and where you made substantially the same arguments. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- This airline literally only flew to four destinations
- Comment - To expand on the WP:OR issue discussed above, take the listing of Tirana as a
"Terminated"
destination on this page. This is cited to a 1966 pamphlet issued by the airline, but that surely doesn't support a claim that the destination was "terminated" in February 2024? In fact there's no way to reach that conclusion with this data, because even if Tirana isn't included in Czech Airlines' current services, there's a bunch of different reasons why that might be so that don't involve them previously having gone there but now having terminated the service, including errors in the original claim (or the later claim that they don't fly there), Tirana having been a destination they planned to go to but never went to, Tirana being part of a wider network, and the flight still being operated.
- In fact, according to the airline website, Czech Airlines do still fly to Tirana.
- Now this might seem like a minor, one-off error, but in fact this entire list was largely assembled using the same approach of synthesising primary sources to reach a conclusion that they don't actually support. Moreover this is repeated across the entire corpus of airline-destination articles as a whole. FOARP (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:IINFO. A list of every place this airline has ever flown to since it started operations 100 years ago feels like a collection of trivia. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep there's no reason to delete this - as per the other AfDs I'm not convinced WP:NOT applies and the destinations are well covered in WP:GNG. Furthermore, this airline is ending operations in less than two months, so this currently and will serve as encyclopedic information about places they flew. SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- The other thing to note is that those claiming WP:NOT - there's no broad consensus about whether these actually fail WP:NOT as a group at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not PROMO for companies to advertise their services. Fails WP:NLIST due to a lack of coverage. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- The idea that this is advertising is utterly laughable. Sorry to OSE, but I take it you'll be nominating List of McDonald's products next? Reywas92Talk 16:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Czech Airlines#Destinations as an alternative to deletion. Not a notable list in of itself and the information is already summarized at the targeted page. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Both a Merge and Redirect have been mentioned during this discussion, do these options have any support?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm OK with redirection or merger, with a preference for redirection as the relevant content is already in the main article to the extent that it's WP:DUE. Overall favour deletion above both. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, various WP:not violations ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 15:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Askew Saddlery Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reviewed during NPP. Only has a single source, and no additional reliable sources were found online. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep meets NCORP. Significant coverage: Kansas City Journal (also [36]), Kansas City Times (also [37]), Implement Dealers Bulletin, The Atchison Daily Champion. Was apparently involved in a high-profile labour dispute in the late 1800s. 558 results on newspapers.com alone. 5 pages of results on Google books. There is a paragraph of coverage from 2021 here. C F A 💬 02:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Jay Anson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect to The Amityville Horror. I did WP:BEFORE and there are a lot of reviews of The Amityville Horror and notices about his death. I wasn't able to find anything else about him outside of those two events. I checked Archive.org and Google but nothing was jumping out at me. Since I nominated this article if anyone finds some sources please ping me so I can add them to the article and I'll withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Restore the redirect. He's not independently notable. As far as I've seen, coverage is always about the book. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. While Jay Anson published only two books, one of them started a major horror phenomenon. As for his own notability, he had an obituary in The New York Times (link), was the subject of a 1978 profile in the NYT (link), is the focus of this 1979 profile in Writers Digest (link), has entries in books such as Hooked on Horror by Anthony J. Fonseca, and is listed in the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia as one of the authors who helped start the emergence of a new type of horror in the late 20th century (link can be found through Wikipedia Library). And I'm still finding new articles through my research (note: it's easy to miss these articles about Anson b/c they were published in the late 1970s and early '80s). Add in the large number of reviews in a number of publications for Anson's two books and he easily meets WP:Author. Yes, the article needs major work but the proof of notability is there.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I found additional obituaries of Anson in the LA Times, The Times of London, and the Washington Post. I've also found a 1978 article in People magazine that goes into details of Anson's life while covering the lawsuits and questions over the book, a "Milestones" mention of Anson's death in Time magazine on 3/24/1980, a short obituary in Starburst Magazine, and the same in The American Annual: 1981. Finally and most significantly, he has a detailed entry in The Contemporary Authors New Revision Series (volume 29, 1990, page 19). I know User:Dr_vulpes said to ping if citations were found, but since the citations are unavailable without the correct subscriptions I'd be happy to add them to the article in the coming days if needed.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- A Beautiful Lie Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect to either Thirty Seconds to Mars or A Beautiful Lie. I did WP:BEFORE on Google, Newspapers.com and Archive.org. I was able to find newspaper articles about a tour that happened to promote the release of A Beautiful Lie but I couldn't find anything about the tour being called "A Beautiful Lie Tour". I looked at the way the Lights in the Sky tour was handled for Nine Inch Nails and it directs to the album it was promoting The Slip (album). Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Events. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only the first game and the franchise go by the name of just simply "Plants vs. Zombies" meaning that this disambiguation page is absolutely not needed. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disambiguations. C F A 💬 00:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
* Speedy Keep Sources were easy to find that call the games Plants vs. Zombies 2 etc. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Schiller, Mike (2013-09-20). "Game Picks". The News and Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America. pp. D2. Retrieved 2024-09-03.
'Plants Vs. Zombies 2' "Plants vs. Zombies 2" (iPhone; Free; Rated 9+) is a little more graceful about the way it goes about the free-to-play business model, as it rarely feels as though paying is a requirement to enjoying the game. While it is frustrating that, after finishing one world, you have to either pay money or collect stars by replaying levels, collecting stars never really feels like that much of a chore. This is largely in part to another challenge system. Rather than simply doing what you've already done, you get variations on the levels with new requirements. It's a good thing they took the approach of offering variations on the levels, too, because the core play style of "Plants Vs. Zombies 2".
Snow, Nathan (2017-04-28). "Plants vs Zombies Heroes great strategy intro". The Daily Spectrum. Saint George, Utah, United States of America. pp. A4. Retrieved 2024-09-03.- Delete I'm a fool and managed to misread multiple things. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Schiller, Mike (2013-09-20). "Game Picks". The News and Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America. pp. D2. Retrieved 2024-09-03.
- What does that have to do with the disambiguation page? No one is suggesting we delete Plants vs. Zombies 2 page itself... Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oops I thought they were talking about the game titles having more content in them then just Plants vs Zombies. Guess I misread that one! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, kind of figured it was something like that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oops I thought they were talking about the game titles having more content in them then just Plants vs Zombies. Guess I misread that one! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with the disambiguation page? No one is suggesting we delete Plants vs. Zombies 2 page itself... Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but those games are not called Plants Vs. Zombies. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not actually a disambiguation page, and this series is too small to need a list. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- generally speaking, pages in a disambiguation page generally must only include entities that go by the exact same name. Say for example, Mega Man (disambiguation) only includes entities titled "Mega Man" as opposed to including entities without the exact common name such as Mega Man II or Mega Man X. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and this series only has two, the series and the first game, so this page should be deleted. QuicoleJR (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- generally speaking, pages in a disambiguation page generally must only include entities that go by the exact same name. Say for example, Mega Man (disambiguation) only includes entities titled "Mega Man" as opposed to including entities without the exact common name such as Mega Man II or Mega Man X. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing to disambiguate and has no content not already in Plants vs. Zombies. cyberdog958Talk 05:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Plants vs. Zombies already exists, which lists all PvZ games. There is no reason to disambiguate the topic. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete A DAB page is not a search index. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Agree per above. No one refers to Plants vs Zombies 2 as simply Plants vs Zombies. This is an example of WP:ONEOTHER even though a few more items are listed JuniperChill (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:REDUNFORK of Plants vs. Zombies Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - appears to have been created by a newer editor who probably doesn't understand the purpose for r concept of a dab page, because this doesn't serve one. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Viva Van (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article deleted by consensus last month; G4 Speedy contested. Additional sources added by contester still don't appear to meet GNG as they are either results/routine coverage or interviews with the subject. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Wrestling, and California. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Viva Van is currently active with AEW/ROH, the previous discussion was relisted however it was deleted before any additional discussion could take place, I've added an article from the Miami Herald, as well as several Fightful Select, Post Wrestling etc. links which we use on several pages concerning independent wrestlers. I think her role in the CMLL Women's championship match against Willow Nightingale is a good example of notability. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:59C0:5620:58ED:634F:B3D5:5673 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Same reasoning as my !vote a month or so ago, just not enough to show notability. Match reports are about all that come up. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Creator of the article here, my reasoning is similar to that of Thief-River-Faller. She makes recurring appearances in AEW/ROH (even if only as an "enhancement talent"), and has made appearances for both of Mexico's main promotions, AAA (appearing at their main event of the year, Triplemanía, in 2023) and CMLL (the aforementioned women's championship match involving Willow Nightingale), and as a result has been subject of articles from mainstream publications such as the Miami Herald. EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just last month. a previous AFD closed as Delete so I think the discussion would benefit from a little more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I've added more sources to the article where she is the primary topic. One source is Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which is a generally reliable source on WikiProject Pro Wrestling's list of sources, as well as an interview conducted by Denise Salcedo. Salcedo is an employee of Wrestling Observer Newsletter and Fightful, both of which are considered reliable sources by the aforementioned list. These new sources, in addition to sources already in the article, help her clear WP:SIGCOV criteria. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interviews of the subject cannot be used to meet WP:GNG due to not being independent of the subject. Both of the sources you added were interviews with the subject. I'm still not seeing anything in the article which indicates the subject has met GNG in the month since the last article was deleted (which, if this is kept, should be undeleted and attributed to, since I don't think there was much different). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment As I pointed, my main concern is the sources. Wrestlers need reliable sources focusing on them. Most of the article is just WP:RESULTS, that means, reports about TV shows where she worked, but the report is not about her. We can use Cagematch and create articles for every wrestler on the planet, that's why we need to include sources about the wrestler. For example, AEW section has 5 sources, 4 of them, WP:RESULTS. ROH section has 1 source, which is WP:RESULTS (Her ROH career isn't notable). Impact Wrestling has one source, WP:RESULTS. Almost every match on the Independent Circuit it's WP:RESULTS (I don't get why her work with Hoodslam it's relevant at all). We can't just take matches from famous promotions to create an article. On the other side, it's fine to read articles from Denice or Miami Herald about her. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the Denice interview has too little secondary context to base a BLP article off of it, especially so since in this instance it's published on The Sportster which is redlisted at WP:RS/PS#Valnet and specifically listed as unreliable at WP:PW/RS. The PWI interview is literally just the raw interview on YouTube. Even if we count Miami Herald, that's still one source. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article is a moving target as sources are being added and removed during the course of this discussion. Sources that merely mention an appearance in a match and pure interviews are not considered SIGCOV. A source assessment table might help settle the disagreement over the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nayatel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see this company meeting SIGCOV or even NCORP. The article mostly relies on sources tied to the organization, GENREL sources and even sources thats falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- KEEP The company is a regional ISP and citations are mostly reliable newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoceles-sai (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Isoceles-sai, Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I count 4 non-promotional articles in national English language newspapers. Another 2 non-promotional articles in technology press. Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Links? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I count 4 non-promotional articles in national English language newspapers. Another 2 non-promotional articles in technology press. Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Isoceles-sai, Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- KEEP they are prividing 300 MB fiber internet, even PTCL is not providing 300 MB. Partner of FB as per DAWN.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- امین اکبر, This was WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dawn (newspaper) is RS for Pakistan. There are other sources as well. FB partner with this org showing it is leading in country. Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please avoid WP:ATA such as WP:MUSTBESOURCES — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dawn (newspaper) is RS for Pakistan. There are other sources as well. FB partner with this org showing it is leading in country. Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Providing internet access, regardless of speed, is not notable here, that's what internet companies around the globe do. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- امین اکبر, This was WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: None of the !keep votes give any rationale for no deleting the article. No SIGCOV and I agree with the nom. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep as this in-depth case study about the company in a reputed academic journal is an example of significant coverage. There is some additional negative coverage in form of controversies ([38], [39]) and some facts shared by Ameen Akbar suggest it is potentially a very notable topic per WP:GNG. 194.213.16.36 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per 194.213.16.36. C F A 💬 00:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per lacking SIGCOV Babysharkboss2!! (Nomad Vagabond) 18:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Did you look at the sources above? C F A 💬 19:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- UnchainedTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this fails WP:NORG. Aside from the promotional tone, most of the references appear to be press releases. Additionally, the reference from CBS News is just a local TV interview from KMAX-TV which is promotional in nature. The New York Times reference leads nowhere. I think redirecting this article to Jane Velez-Mitchell should be sufficient. Limmidy (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and Websites. Limmidy (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Limmidy.
- I really appreciate that you have taken the time to review this article. I ask that you please reconsider your recommendation "for deletion".
- 1. I am an avid user of UnchainedTV and am an animal rights activist. Thus, my interest in writing and publishing this article.
- 2. Your comment that it fails WP.NORG. : Please note that UnchainedTV is a not for profit endeavour and provides all content 100% free and does not even require a subscription, a membership nor signing up, etc.
- 3. WP.NORG clearly states: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.". According to their website they are a non-profit education institution: "UnchainedTV is part of the JaneUnChained News Network, a 501 c-3 non-profit, EIN number 82-3892784." Thus it meets the rule of "exception".
- 4. Well noted on the press releases, the CBS news interview, the NY Times deadline and the recommendation to link to the founder. ---After I hear back from you on the issue of "Article for Deletion", I will then fix all points in #3 above.
- Again, I really appreciate your time on this. all my best, 444wiki444 (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Please note that UnchainedTV is a not for profit endeavour and provides all content 100% free and does not even require a subscription, a membership nor signing up, etc
is just blatant advertising. WP:NORG applies to all organizations, for-profit or not. The exceptions you've listed are for schools, religions and sports teams. Clearly this streaming website is not a school or any type of "educational institution". And even if was, WP:GNG still applies here. C F A 💬 00:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)- @444wiki444: Did you use AI to write this article? C F A 💬 01:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Both [40] and [41] are unarchived dead links and appear to focus on the "Peeled" show, not the streaming network. [42] is a blog post in an industry publication. [43] is an unarchived dead link. [44] is a trivial mention. NYT is another unarchived dead link. [45] is a republished press release. BroadWay World is an unreliable source. The other sources are republished press releases in industry (possibly non-independent) publications, the press releases themselves, the organization's website, routine coverage, or trivial mentions. Couldn't find anything better. I also don't understand how there are so many (unarchived) dead links when this article was created today? C F A 💬 01:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 01:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete via A7 (no credible claim of significance) if possible, otherwise delete per NORG and WP:TNT. There's so much possible false information being pushed here that it would be better to remake the article through AfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Environment, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Very much PROMO. I had to get to page 14 of a Gnews search before seeing anything that wasn't from UnchainedTV... The CBS link now in the article 404's, so doesn't load. It's here [46], a brief interview on a news program. That's fine I suppose, but if there is no other coverage in 15 pages of searches, there just isn't enough to build an article. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete blatant WP:PROMO, the sources provided is just WP:SIGCOV failing WP:GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I would argue for a redirect to Jane Velez-Mitchell#2014–present: UnchainedTV, but the subject's BLP is just as much a mess about the topic. I would not use the KOVR/KMAX source either as that's clearly advertorial placement in the station's morning show of Good Day Sacramento which is not of news value. Nate • (chatter) 16:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)