Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 16	August 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Jurij Viditsch

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

A 17th century Slovenian mayor is hardly notable enough to keep a page here. Although he was mayor of Ljubljana, the capital city of Slovenia, which could be grounds for some notability, no sources exist which make significant mention of his life or do anything more substantial than say his name.

Here are all existing sources I could find about him:

[1] (which apparently consists of articles from Wikipedia according to this site here)
[2] (only mentions him once)

The only page on Wikipedia that even makes mention of him is List of mayors of Ljubljana. If it weren't for similarly useless pages about mayors from Ljubljana's history whose pages should be deleted alongside this one, this page would be an Orphan. Fringe, Suspect The (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Slovenia was not an independent country at the time and Ljubljana not a capital. This weakens the case for NPOL. The first source mentioned above is very obviously a Wikipedia collection. Several other mayor articles are in the same dire state, including Horacij Carminelli and other successors. Many of these only duplicate List of mayors of Ljubljana and can be redirected there. In that list, a few other details such as birth and death year can also be added whereever known. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed. Fringe, Suspect The (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was all I could find [3]; just not enough sourcing for our needs here. Sourcing now in the article is a list of mayors from the city, not helping notability (and a primary source). Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Curbon7 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The cited source [2] names A) his reelection B) German name: Under "Georg Viditsch" you will find him several listings in google books plus a secondary literature that states that he was judge at Laibach afterwards. Axisstroke (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more information here than is already given at List of mayors of Ljubljana, which is true of a number of other mayors in that list with similar stub articles that should also go. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we should avoid having contemporary notability standards for historical figures for earlier epochs. Just because a person isn't highlighted by contemporary historians doesn't mean he wasn't notable during his time period. The name has different variations, Georg or Jurij, Vidic or Viditsch, probably some other variants in Latin. A mayor of a mayor city in this period wasn't a 'local politician' as we understand it today, that person would have been a person of significant notability. He also served as 'Stadtrichter' of the city. Here we see his heraldic shield. He is mentioned here across story of several pages, but I can't make sense of the Fraktur script, not sure if journalistic account or prose. ([4] mentions a Georg Vidic born around 1540 in Blečji Vrh, as the first known in a genealogical line of Vidic... but DOB doesn't really match our Georg Vidic) --Soman (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Soman. Nvss132 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a town judge, an innkeeper, and a mayor of what is now a capital city of an independent country, so there clearly is historical interest in keeping information on this person. There are in-depth discussions of him in the relevant literature; see e.g. Ljubljana Mayors Through Time (pg. 73). I could agree on having this article merged elsewhere but not on its outright deletion. --TadejM ^{my talk} 13:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The currently cited sources are short descriptions or lists. There is no WP:SIGCOV on online sources. The source cited by TadejM is also a short description, not in-depth discussion. I would have agreed with Soman on being careful with applying contemporary notability standards for historical figures, however, notable historical figures are still covered in-depth by reliable sources; old, printed ones, if not available online. We don't have proof of those at this time to say the subject merits an encyclopedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention," which is a clear case here. The said article illustrates the person's notability and it is not a trivial mention. There is no mention of 'short description' in the relevant guideline. You may compare this article e.g. to this one that we have decided to keep. I would hope that a historical personality is at least on par with a random sportswoman who got to participate in the Olympics. --TadejM ^{my talk} 05:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here (Something about Ljubljana street names and surnames from the early 17th century (according to two new urbaria from 1620-1633)) is another reference that provides further information on Jurij Viditsch (Georg Widitsch) and describes him as a very notable personality for Ljubljana at the time. The article discusses in depth two urbaria composed under Jurij Viditsch. --TadejM ^{my talk} 07:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we shouldn't necessarily apply contemporary notability standards for historical figures, there is no reason to apply it backwards either, i.e. claim that a mayor of a city which is a capital now is equivalent to the city holding capital status then. Re: your other points: Sportspeople that participate in the Olympics are not random, they are meticulously selected - nonetheless a Wikipedia entry about an Olympian is deleted almost every day. So it's a completely flawed analogy Geschichte (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. It didn't influence my closure but it was interesting to read the reviews on Amazon from readers who were angry when they discovered that the "tell all" book was fictitious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My So-Called Career in Hollywood

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

No sigcov. Very few mentions at all, even in passing. Theoretically, redirect to Timothy Williams (actor), but he might not be notable either. Better chance than this article though.PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Timothy Williams (actor) - I am finding no coverage or reviews on the book, and no information at all on the listed publisher of the book. As stated in the nom, the author may not be notable themselves, but as long as they have an article up, Redirecting to that would be appropriate for now. Rorshacma (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having seen the arguments below, I am changing my recommendation to Delete unless reliable sources are found verifying the book was actually written by Timothy Williams. I suspect this article was likely written by the author themselves, or someone closely connected to them, but I agree that if there are no sources actually confirming the author of the book, it would need to be deleted rather than redirected. Rorshacma (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do we have reliable sources confirming the book was written by Timothy Williams? If so, I would argue for redirecting. However, if we don't even have proof Williams wrote the book, it should be deleted. Ping me if anything shows up. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade I was unable to find a reliable source stating it, as afaik there are no reliable sources that mention this book. The only thing I found is his IMDB bio, which states "In addition, he is the ghost writer behind two cult classic novels: "My So-Called Career in Hollywood," the autobiography of 1960's failed sitcom writer E. Klass, and "I Am Not Lost in Space!" the fictionalized autobiography of iconic TV character Will Robinson, and the first 'tie-in novelization' based on the 1960's series published in over 40 years." That could of course not be true, because IMDB.

Upon looking at this, I have now realized there is a high chance that the creator of this page is Timothy Williams - their username starts with TW, the number string is "3767" vs his birthday of 30 July 1967 and the only things they ever edited was Williams page and the pages of his works. So, well, at least he thinks he made it. I think it should redirect but uhhh looking at the history here I now realize we may have bigger issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence that this was written by Timothy Williams. It's worth nothing that the creator, who clearly has a conflict of interest, also created I Am Not Lost in Space! which also claims it was ghost-written by Williams. Not sure if these claims are outright wrong or just not published anywhere, but either way they are not verifiable. C F A 💬 01:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination. Article lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. I don't think it should be redirect to Timothy Williams as I don't believe that the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR which is why I have nominated the article for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Wisdom Bridge

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

Only one source listed is an actual review/has outside commentary and what seems to be independence. I was unable to find anything else. A lot of the sources fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA which further confuses matters. Redirect to Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this as the article as sufficient references as suggested per Wikipedia Policies for a book. The article has also been reviewed by other editors.Gardenkur (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are press-release tier material which per NBOOK do not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. A rule of thumb after reviewing hundreds of these AFD discussions is when Cielquiparle rewrites an article during an AFD discussion, more often than not, the sources are pretty solid. I just wish we had more editors who would take on questionable articles in the process of being considered for deletion and make them worthy of being Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laureen Oliver

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

Oliver seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Most of the coverage on her consists of brief mentions, mostly in local outlets. Mooonswimmer 23:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC. Coverage includes academic books about the role of third parties in American politics (like this 2012 volume published by University of South Carolina Press). Over her 30+ year career in politics, she has been referenced a lot in national newspapers, not just local. Given the volume of coverage involving Oliver, this will take some time to sort through but definitely worth keeping. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing how that really counts as significant coverage. Mooonswimmer 22:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am reminded of the consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Redpath and Redpath was a national figure of the third largest party in the United States versus one of three founders of a state-level, third-party with regular ballot access. The mention above I think fails WP:BASIC as WP:BASIC explicitly precludes trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources. The mention in Challengers of Duopoly is exactly that.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the well detailed analysis of Cielquiparle. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she was a major figure in New York politics, and later nationally. I disagree with her politics, but she’s clearly notable. She was in the news constantly during the 1990s. The founded what quickly became the third largest party in New York. Sources should be easy to find. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of specific sources in light of WP:NBASIC would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per Bearian and Cielquiparle. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adam Davies (snooker player)

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

My WP:BEFORE search did not uncover evidence that the subject is notable. There is a some news coverage that doesn't directly relate to his career as a snooker player, but even taking that into account, I don't think that WP:GNG is satisfied. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cue sports. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of a number of articles I created around 2015 with the aim of improving our coverage of snooker players, but the rationale behind this was somewhat flawed! 'Assume any professional or former professional is notable, solely by virtue of their having been a professional' seemed to make sense to me aged 20, but nine years later and with the benefit of a bit more wisdom, of course it isn't that simple. To me, now, it seems obvious that if we have an article for a player whose best showing was the second qualifying round of a tournament, we may as well go about making articles for about eight billion other people too...most of whom would be more notable in any case! The one thing I would insist upon is that the Matthew Selt match-fixing/bribery allegations be included as a section in his article; something of this nature is too serious to be forgotten about. Montgomery15 (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CISB-FM

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG or WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Sandy Bay First Nation or List of radio stations in Manitoba. Obvious GNG failure. If substantial content on the radio station (one or two sentences) can be cited, the former article may be a better target, but I am not finding any in NewsBank. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sandy Bay First Nation#Notes: this article is clearly written to meet the looser, non-GNG "inclusion standards" of ~15 years ago that were more about existence of a license (notwithstanding that, as ever, existence is neither notability nor proof of it) than significant coverage. Considering that the GNG was confirmed as the actual notability barometer here in 2021 and the article was only created this month (and all articles from any era are required to comply with current policies and guidelines in any event), that's a problem. The existing brief mention in the First Nation's article is more than enough. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli pita

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

This topic doesn't seem to be independently notable. The claim that this food item is different from Pita is sourced to blogs and an opinion piece in The Forward discussing minor differences, which could be easily dealt with in a sentence or two at Pita. The best sources, such as The New Yorker, don't even mention "Israeli" pita. Valereee (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the basic assertion that there appears to be a lack of high-quality sources identifying an "Israeli pita" distinct from other varieties. I mulled over whether deletion or redirect/merge to Pita would be more appropriate, but at this time I'm leaning towards deletion due to the balance of sources and the lack of any other precedent for Lebanese pita, Jordanian pita, Egyptian pita, Greek pita, etc. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I actually just read this article the other day when I was looking for a recipe for Israeli pita. It's fluffier than other varieties (or at least it's supposed to be, mine didn't turn out well, just thick), but not a distinct enough concept that requires a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 14:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What source are you getting the it's fluffier than other varieties from? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Morley (soccer)

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this subject, an American former soccer player, to meet WP:GNG. The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV that I found was this piece from Circling the News, a site which does not seem to have a listed editorial policy. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Livio Mayr

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Found some sources [5] and [6] which are trivial. However [7] appears to be extensive, but I don't think its enough for WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Austria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches yielded lots of passing mentions in "match" reports. The Salzburg24 article linked by the nom has a few sentences of coverage, but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. The subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for the source; it's been added to the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anabwani I of Bunyoro

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

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

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

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

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

A. K. A. Firoze Noon

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

From reading the cringe-worthy prose of early revisions ("one of the finest sons of the soil, who shines in the civil and political society all by his own radiance ...", etc.), this appears to have been created as a memorial, which is not what the encyclopedia is for.

Searching online and offline in English and Bengali found nothing beyond the short obituary and death anniversary notice, a primary source program listing, and bookseller sites. It doesn't amount to significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.

After stripping out everything for which no source could be identified, it is clear that he meets none of WP:POLITICIAN, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the subject of this article fails GNG, SNG for Politicians and Authors. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deletion seems likely, but even a little more discussion would help settle this for good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in Europe

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

Same problem again, WP:NOTADIRECTORY violation, article completely unsourced. Govvy (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Lists, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in Asia and Oceania

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

Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, breach of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Lists, Asia, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Whatsapp channels

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

Nominating for deletion for two main reasons, 1) WP:NOT, specifically WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE; but 2) mostly for failing WP:V. Of the six arbitrary sources picked for the article, two appear to be country-specific, and one is used to source seven of the 30 entries. None of the other 23 entries are referenced at all. Another author recently updated s I had suggested adding them (if they are available) and the date to which they applied, but this hasn't happened. ome of the figures, also using no sourcing. Subjectively, I don't see that such a list has any encyclopedic value, and without references, objectively, it has no business being here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add: Somehow I managed to cut some of my text from the above. The sentence starting "Another author..." should actually read "Another author recently updated some of the entries, but without adding any sources for the changes." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and Lists. C F A 💬 18:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NLIST as RSes don’t appear to group the most popular WhatsApp channels together. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the user who updated the chart, according to something similar that happens in the Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and Facebook's charts of this type. Anyway, you can go to WhatsApp, go to the news section, explore channels and change the region that you want when you want and organize them by followers. Santi (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hunter Salveson

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

ROTM film exec, going about her job, but ultimately not notable or even noteworthy (in fact, borderline A7 speediable, IMO). No evidence of notability per WP:PRODUCER, and with the possible exception of the first Variety piece, none of the sources even contribute towards, let alone establish, WP:GNG (and a BEFORE search finds nothing better). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, United States of America, and California. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At present, the references in the article are as follows. (The numbers are those given in the reference list in the article, but I have reordered them to put related references together.)

(1) An announcement on the website of Salveson's company about the appointment of a person to a post in the company.

(2) An article about the fact that although a U.S. tax benefit (Section 181 of the Internal Revenue Code) has "expired", some businesses are still able to benefit from it, because they did a small amount of production work before the expiry. It tells us that Salveson was responsible for enabling a number of businesses to benefit from this method. Significant coverage of one thing she has done? Perhaps. Significant coverage of her? Certainly not.

(9) An identical copy of the same article as number 2, on a different website. Not only does that mean it adds nothing whatever to evidence of notability, but it also strongly suggests that it is a press release, and therefore not independent coverage.

(3) An interview with Salveson.

(4) An article about a film. Near the bottom of the article is a list of eleven people involved in the production of the film. Salveson's name is included in the list; that is the only mention of her.

(5) Same again, for the same film, except that this time Salveson's name is in a list of thirteen instead of eleven.

(7) Same again, for the same film, except that this time Salveson's name is in a list of six.

(6) A page on Rotten Tomatoes, which lists the films on which Salveson has been an executive producer, the Rotten Tomatoes score, and the year of release of the film. Also for one of the films it gives the box office takings.

(8) An article about another film, which tells us that "The film is financed by Emily Hunter Salveson".

Obviously, none of this is evidence of notability in Wikipedia's sense. JBW (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I was going to nominate this myself. There are some trivial mentions and a bit of coverage about a company she founded, but nothing in-depth about her. Just a run-of-the-mill business person – no real indication of notability. C F A 💬 00:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: JBW's source analysis is reliable. The nomination states correctly that Salveson is a WP:ROTM businessperson. I this as VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT, WP:ADMASQ for a businessperson who fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrali Gasimov

AfDs for this article:

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

The individual's activities have not been topic of secondary reliable sources and there is no significant coverage. If you look at the article, it only provides information about the person's education and later acquisition of the relevant position. The position held by the individual and the award received do not alone make him notable. The references given do not meet significant coverage; they are merely brief news reports about visits, congratulations, and meetings. Additionally, it's worth noting that there are suspicions that this article was created through UPE (see). It is one of several articles created in multiple language sections for advertising purposes using paid editing. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of the article (Mammadli99) has been blocked due undisclosed paid editing. --Sura Shukurlu (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clete Patterson

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage from secondary sources. A redirect to 1924 Kenosha Maroons season may be preferred as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Sharma Pahalwan

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

Subject does not pass NPOL or GNG. Almost all the paragraphs failed verification in the initial article that was draftified [8]. The rest are routine coverage and passing mentions from recent Indian elections. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Sportspeople, Wrestling, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1918 Georgia Eleventh Cavalry football team

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. A before search only came up with some passing mentions. Let'srun (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article only seems to exist on a cookie-cutter "all teams who played a recognised college football game shall have a season article in this format" basis. But as a once-off game by a non-college with no other football history, its season performance is not a topic which meets GNG. Aspirex (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1918 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team#Georgia Eleventh Cavalry. The cited sources don't satisfy WP:GNG. My search turned up some better coverage of the cavalry team (e.g., here and here), but it's the result of having played a single game against the defending national champion -- and losing by a massive score. The 123-0 score is one of the biggest points differentials in college football history (despite being stopped after the third quarter) and is somewhat notable for that fact. See List of 100-point games in college football. That said, the game is covered at the proposed redirect location and can be covered in greater depth there should anyone decide to expand that discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a valid outcome as well, as long as there is a sentence at the target which says "This was 11th Cavalry's only game of the season" or words to that effect (I.e. so the target paragraph does explain the 11C's entire season) Aspirex (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of a reliable source stating that it was 11C's only game of the season. That may be true, but without a reliable source, I wouldn't be inclined to add it. Redirect seems like the best outcome with or without such a sentence. Cbl62 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect. What is interesting to note here though is that this wasn't even the biggest blowout for Georgia Tech this season. Let'srun (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. They had three games in which they outscored opponents by a total of 369-0! Cbl62 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paharer Alo

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

Non-notable regional news portal/paper. The article shows zero evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McMenamin

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

I am unable to find any significant coverage. The one source in the article is the only one I can see about this person. I don't think the subject meets WP:NOLYMPICS or WP:NATHLETE. Frost 16:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Frost 16:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ireland_at_the_1972_Summer_Olympics#Sailing. My own WP:BEFORE returned a handful of sources. Including an Irish Independent article which suggests that "at the 1972 Munich Olympics {..} Joe McMenamin ranked 16th in the sailing competition six weeks shy of his 60th birthday, making him our {Ireland's} oldest Olympic athlete". While not indicative of notability on its own, "Ireland's oldest (ever?) Olympian" is perhaps sufficient to warrant coverage within the related article. Per WP:WITHIN. And a redirect. Where, per WP:ATD-R, the Ireland_at_the_1972_Summer_Olympics#Sailing section would seem an "appropriate" redirect target for that title.... Guliolopez (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ireland_at_the_1972_Summer_Olympics#Sailing - I agree with this approach but would also support a deletion of the article. In any case, a standalone article is not merited. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parbatta News

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

Non-notable regional news portal. The article shows zero evidence of notability. There are also some incorrect fact in the article like it says it is a "National News Media", "first and most popular national media" etc. (Do not be confused by the Category:Bengali-language newspapers published in Bangladesh in the article, Parbatta News is not a newspaper.) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cox's Bazar or Chittagong Hill Tracts in one of the sections, without the primary sources. Svampesky (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because searches in English and Bengali found no significant coverage that would meet WP:GNG, and the topic fails WP:NWEB, WP:NMEDIA, and WP:NPERIODICAL. Merge doesn't make sense to me in this case. The only independent non-primary source is the self-published dailybanglanewspapers.com, a directory listing which has no reputation for accuracy or fact checking (they say their data was collected by searching Google). Should Wikipedia advertise this news portal anywhere just because it exists and an editor with no understanding of notability created a stub about it? --Worldbruce (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme God (Hinduism)

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

This article, which was whipped into existence just a few months ago, is negated by the very well-sourced and detailed God in Hinduism article we have had up for a long time (and is even specifically covered by other articles like Ishvara and Svayam Bhagavan). The new article also makes a lot of dubious and selectively-sourced claims, such as insinuating that all Hindus are monotheistic, as well as outright declaring that all schools of Hinduism believe in a supreme God (decidedly not true: many well-established and well-sourced articles, including the God in Hinduism article, cover this in detail). I believe the case for deletion is straightforward. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Merriman

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

Repeatedly moved from draft by conflicted user, this clearly fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation corrected in regards to record deal not being secured -evidence of such clearly provided in articles . Personal information removed about family, as is appropriate. Denseem (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No point of view of skew was taken on this articl, simply correcting inaccuracy and removing personal information Denseem (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denseem, you don't need to make 5 nearly identical comments saying the same thing. It can discourage participation from other editors and the best way to come to a consensus to have sufficient editor participation in deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the duplicate comments, leaving only one copy behind. Left guide (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see 1.5 good sources about him - the AL source is substantial; the first Irish Times is brief but is about him. In the rest he's listed as a collaborator with not much about him, or they are interviews. I didn't find anything else about him. NOM seems to be correct that there are COI issues and there appear to have been possible WP:SOCK issues as well. Good to keep an eye on. Lamona (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
two Variety articles and Screen magazine are substantial sources in the film business. 77.75.96.206 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that those articles are not about him; he is only name-checked there. So those don't count toward notability, even though they can source some information in the article. Lamona (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 14:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Font

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

Fails GNG. All I could find was mentions in routine match coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No significant coverage. C F A 💬 18:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There does seem to be some coverage, e.g. 1 2 3 4. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding enough coverage about the subject to meet the WP:GNG. What has been brought to the discussion thus far is more about other things besides the BLP or not have depth otherwise, and a search for additional coverage failed to uncover anything worthwhile. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali-Nakyea Abdallah

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

Fail WP: Academics Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator; meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMICS. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, the subject is a leading expert in the tax law of Ghana, but the current article has few sources about him. Can anyone find more significant sources about him? Bearian (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaretville station

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

No claim to notability, just some railroad station. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found (likely), otherwise Merge to a suitable broader article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse

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

I don't think this subject passes WP:LISTN. Having a list of works featuring Mickey Mouse, but only versions of him adapted after 1 January 2024 is just very oddly specific. Every single entry on this list could easily be put into List of Mickey Mouse films and appearances. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Video games, Disney, and Lists. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Uncertain on its notability, but I don't see its timeframe or scope as "oddly specific". The date isn't arbitrary. As its title suggests, it's when the copyright ran out so people could use/recreate without potential repercussion. It's a logical classification. I also oppose the merge suggestion. That would be comparable to including fan created unofficial characters to a list of a franchise's real character list. These items don't belong there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am normally very in favor of merging as an WP:ATD, but I agree with Sergecross73 that these works are fundamentally different from the other Mickey Mouse works. Something going public domain is a very clear break in the topic. That is the date where we transition from officially authorized works to unauthorized (because they don't need authorization anymore). I might consider deletion as most of these do not have articles, and some of them are WP:CRYSTAL for works that are not out yet. But I might also weakly consider keeping it, if the non-notable entries are cleaned up. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguably falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the idea of things being made with a newly public domain character is merely a novelty that will eventually fade into irrelevance. All that this means is that the original list should likely be retitled "List of Mickey Mouse Disney media". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following how it falls into INDISCRIMINATE. It's got a very defined scope and only 14 items on the list. I find it hard to believe its scope would spiral out with a simple "only include items covered by third party reliable sources verify" inclusion criteria set up. As your own words suggest, websites aren't going to cover every single absurd fan creation. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources covering the subject of the list as a set exist. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the copyright act extensions which always seemed to keep Steamboat Willie out of the public domain are a long-running topic. There's certainly a potential to merge to 2024 in American public domain, but that's more properly a merge discussion, rather than something being mandated by AfD. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is distinct from the Disney-owned work, and has been discussed as a set. The fact that the Copyright Term Extension Act was nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" indicates that this specific character passing into public domain is noteworthy. I agree that this is a novelty, but a relevant and notable one. Toughpigs (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – significant coverage of the set as a whole. I find it curious that the nominator thinks the set "oddly specific" and the delete !voter opines "Arguably falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE". Such is AFD. Thincat (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well sourced, and its concept and simple inclusion criteria should keep its scope manageable. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Turňa

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

Another long-time stub of a Slovak footballer named Matúš, he last played for Spartak Trnava in 2021 before disappearing from the football world. My Google showed nothing better than brief mentions and routine coverage, including this one. I've checked corresponding articles in other Wikipedia languages but none of them provide significant coverage; the Slovak one has been tagged for notability issues since 2021 so it obviously will not help copy over English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he last played for Spartak Trnava in 2021 before disappearing from the football world. Well, he was 35 in 2021 so probably retired. Over a 12-year career between 2009 and 2021 Turňa made close to 300 appearances in the Slovak First Football League, the first tier of Slovakian football which was fully professional in all of that time (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues). I'd be surprised if there's no WP:SIGCOV; I'll have a look later. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is based on a guideline that has been abandoned following NSPORTS2022. The fact that someone has made over 100 appearances in a fully-professional league or senior national team is no longer supported. This article needs to actually meet WP:GNG in order for it to be kept. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I didn't state that their number of appearances was sufficient. Note how I didn't even write "keep" and how I said I'd look for SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Turňa is still active player, currently only on an amateur level of football, playing for FK Podkonice in the 3rd tier of Slovak football. Recently, he played full match on 11 August 2024, source: https://sportnet.sme.sk/futbalnet/z/sfz/zapas/800573/#zostavy IQual (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per previous commenter and some significant coverage found here. Lots of coverage here and there, and it's interesting to me that he was named the 10th best domestic signing during a particular transfer window. They would not name run-of-the-mill players in the top 10. Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 14:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pan American Airways (disambiguation)

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

Redundant disambiguation page. There is already a comprehensive dab page at Pan Am (disambiguation); this page instead only disambiguates between two articles which could be disambiguated via hatnote if necessary, or not at all, now that their leads have been clarified, and the relationship between the articles in question has been explained much more meaningfully there. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Disambiguations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Not much to discuss, really. But if you delete it, just make sure that "Pan American Airways" (Pan American world Airways's earlier name) redirects to the "Pan Am (disambiguation)" disambiguation page. Otherwise you will recreate the problem the deleted disambgation page was trying to correct. (Making sure users can find what they want easily always is a higher priority than curating the numner of disambuguation pages.) Mdnavman (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

I'm not sure what you suggest is necessary: Pan American Airways currently redirects to Pan Am, and on that article there is a rather prominent hatnote that lists both the Pan American Airways articles in question. That seems adequately disambiguated to me. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16th Artillery Brigade (Ukraine)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any sources online, possibly redirect to National Guard of Ukraine? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 09:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 09:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559047920465), (https://www.ukrdruk.com/product/flag-00853/), (https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3888632-u-nacgvardii-stvorili-centr-upravlinna-bezpilotnih-sistem-komanduvac.html) Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[9] - gives short description, commander, where it's based from MUN number.
[10] - article about drone hunting group of brigade not receiving bonuses. 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ceriy (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A brigade is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a notability guideline which states that? LibStar (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an opinion based on the much mocked (by deletionists, of course) WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the question. Which notability guideline grants inherent notability to brigades? LibStar (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone is most unlike any admin I've encountered. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First artillery brigade of the National Guard. [11] Ceriy (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Guard of Ukraine. In the absence of a notability guideline granting inherent notability which I have asked for and received no response. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalyam (2022 film)

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

Simple fails WP:NFILM. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Bandi Saroj Kumar (I've just restored that page, was a redirect) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls (disambiguation)

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

There's nothing to disambiguate. The series page is the only article that can be referred to as simply "The Elder Scrolls" or "Elder Scrolls". This so called disambiguation page is basically a duplicate of List of The Elder Scrolls video games. Mika1h (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree fully with the nomination: "nothing to disambiguate". Athel cb (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to disambiguate: The games here aren't identically named. Their subtitle is also intrinsically part of their name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to disambiguate. There is a clear main topic that links to all these articles, with additional context. Those games all have different titles that don't need to be disambiguated. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a disambiguation page, it is a list of Elder Scrolls games. And we already have a list of Elder Scrolls games. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary as none of these games are referred to solely as The Elder Scrolls. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Pondicherry Premier League

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

Don't need separate season article for this local league, where none of the players are notable. This season article fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 Delhi Premier League is a local league but you not delete only delete 2024 Pondicherry Premier League why? What's your Problem tell me 2409:40E5:1017:2724:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, that article should also be deleted. The matter is that nobody has yet bothered to spend their time in nominating the article for deletion, as all are volunteers here. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please I request don't delete indian T20 league articles. Indian Government Policy Wikipedia Block in India

Because All article delete voilince in india 2409:40E5:1017:2724:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple Articles Tamil Nadu Premier League All Season Not Delete Why? 2409:40E5:1017:2724:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i provide multiple sources but you not delete I need 10 day only 2409:40E5:1017:2724:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Joseph2302: Shouldn't the parent article Pondicherry Premier League also be deleted? I don't think that one to be notable either per WP:GNG. Robo^CricLet's chat 14:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Don't Remove first remove Tamil Nadu Premier League 2409:40E5:1017:2724:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i live in Pondicherry please not Delete 2409:40E5:1017:2724:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 Top End T20 Series local tournament but you not delete only you delete Indian what's your Problem indian league are you Pakistan 2409:40E5:1017:2724:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not from Pakistan. And stop spreading communal hatred. I'll keep saying everything which are legitimate. No matter if the article is from India or not, and nobody even bothers if you're from Pondicherry or not. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Thanks For you Information i request please delete this list.
2024 Delhi Premier League

2023 Tamil Nadu Premier League

2024 Bengal Pro T20 League

2022 Tamil Nadu Premier League

2021 Tamil Nadu Premier League

2020 Tamil Nadu Premier League

2019 Tamil Nadu Premier League

2409:40E5:1017:2724:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want these articles to be considered for deletion, you have to make a separate bundled AFD nomination. Just mentioning them in the middle of an AFD discussion will lead to nothing happening. You have to read the instructions at WP:AFD, CAREFULLY, and formally go through the nomination process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 UP T20 League

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

Do not need individual season articles for this tournament, as its individual seasons don't generate enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. All content can be handled in parent article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the 2023 season:

Adam Gaži

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this young Slovak men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. In terms on sources that are not database or match reports, I only found an interview on AktualitySK, while the rest are passing mentions in squad list. This might be the case of WP:TOOSOON. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found several match sources and statistics (appearances) of the player, please check it on official Slovak First League website https://www.nikeliga.sk/hrac/2142-adam-gazi , another reliable source is Soccerway.com https://au.soccerway.com/players/adam-gai/640574/ and you can find him in the match lineups from match against MFK Dukla Banská Bystrica that was held on 3 August 2024, source: https://sportnet.sme.sk/futbalnet/z/ulk/zapas/771500/#zostavy IQual (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the user above suggests, all I was able to find were match reports, squad listings, and statistics databases. The subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of in-depth coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Jones

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

WP:notability, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Fails notability criteria, WP:notability and Notability for academics criteria Wikipedia:Notability (academics) She was never a professor and the number of citations arising from her PhD is small. Anubus13 (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is the evidence that she was not notable? static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. Her "Evidence for prehistoric origins of Egyptian mummification in late Neolithic burials" (first of five authors) has 107 citations on Google Scholar, which may be high for Egyptology (I'm not sure), and appears to be the basis for all the mainstream-media coverage in our article. I don't think we can base WP:PROF#C1 on a single work, and the rest of her publications are not as well cited. I cannot even verify the basic biographical milestones listed in our article (degrees, employment as a research fellow, and date of death). There's a more colorful biography than ours at [12] but equally unverifiable and I think not really usable as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book on Helwan excavations of which she is co-author is also cited 44 times. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 21:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists

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

I don’t know what to make of this. WP:NOTADATABASE. Hodgepodge of unsourced statistics. MOS:ACCESS violations that I don’t even know how to begin to address. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Music. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Black Day

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

Appears like 2 articles exist for same context. Jammu and Kashmir Black Day. Why do we need 2 articles on same issue? Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Tafa

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

Previously PROD deleted so no longer eligible this time but notability is still a massive concern. I can find nothing to support a passing of WP:GNG nor WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I can find is a mention of an injury in a Panorama report and a brief mention of a transfer. This is trivial coverage and not significant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly played on a low level with few accomplishments, so in accordance with that, not enough sources. Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Shivamogga explosion

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

I created this article when I wasn't too solid with GNG or WP:EVENT. Sincere respects to the 8 dead, but this was a relatively minor incident with no lasting coverage and not much depth. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 07:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Karnataka. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 07:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Levishyn

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lacks WP:SIGCOV as the sources is just databases Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rode in the Speedway World Cup, the pinnacle of speedway Pyeongchang (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I support Pyeongchang's assertion that the SWC is "the pinnacle of speedway". We allow bios of sports that is the pinnacle of sport, so why can't this? SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject LibStar (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...or I say userfy for future notabiity since he is young and plenty to go. This nom maybe is a bio thus presumably different but I'll use this as an argument. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Like the majority of articles, sources determine notability, an analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This added source is just a 1 sentence mention of Levishyn and not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The sources barely mention the subject and SIGCOV not present. Need more sources with in depth coverage, not passing mentions in the table. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 06:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident. Closing this early per WP:NOTBURO. This was a duplicate article that has now been redirected. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 21:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kolkata doctor rape and murder case

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

WP:NOTNEWS, though the subsequent protest may deserve an article of their own. Aydo h8^[contribs] 06:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and West Bengal. Aydo h8^[contribs] 06:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:GNG, This article is about the case of brutal rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata, after which public protest has been going on for more than a week in India. It still continues in cities and hospitals in India News [13][14][15][16][17] [18][19][20][21][22] Spworld2 (talk) Spworld2 (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Spworld2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Those sources are related to the protests not to the actual murder itself, as it does not inherit notability from the protests. You could go ahead an make an article about the protests themselves. Aydo h8^[contribs] 07:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Article is also poorly written, with incomplete sentences and many mistakes. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The article's current content is not relevant to this discussion. This *local* event has led to a *national* doctors' strike with *international* attention, satisfies WP:NEVENT. Title may well need changing, but the event is notable and having significant flow on effects. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Article barely covers its own topic. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nominator's rationale. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a similarly notorious case, the 2012 Delhi rape and murder case, has its own article. This article can be expanded and improved. Tala hayat (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and redirect - this is duplicitous of the existing article 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this is a duplicate page of 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect wasn't aware this was a duplicate; concur with ZimZalaBim. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay

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

Also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Fails WP:NLIST. One of 20+ extraneous articles created by now-WP:CBANed user Geo Swan, unnecessarily breaking out the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees into country-by-country counts. The large list includes detainees' nationalities. If separating by nationality is necessary, the chart on that page can be reformatted to enable such an examination. What this has led to is pages of various encyclopedic quality and accuracy, when maintaining one article, out of date in its own right, is more than enough. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Sweden, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be deleting all of the nation lists on the Template:Guantanamo Bay Detainees? If not, why these particular ones? (I'm likely supporting deletion, just trying to understand the situation.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that any list with only one entry should be a redirect to an article on the individual. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the rest should be added to AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, the nominated articles are very different from each other (Danish and Swedish has one entry each, Afghan states there have been over 200). AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somewhat for the OP's concerns, somewhat for WP:BLPCRIME issues. I realize it's a broad interpretation, but these are lists of people who have been imprisoned by a government for doing something the government deems wrong, and generally have not faced a trial and conviction. Looking at the lists, there are a lot of non-linked names and red-linked names, and many of those that are blue-linked, their page is just about the fact that they were so imprisoned, so these qualify as otherwise-not-notable folks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all Duplicates main page, where I've combined the letter tables so the sorting works. No, these pages are not different from each other, they are all redundant to the main article and none are needed separately. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to one list. Guantanamo being Guantanamo I would argue that a list of all inmates is potentially encyclopedic but I don't see why we would need it to split it into multiple articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Belgian detainees at Guantanamo Bay, List of Danish detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and List of Mauritanian detainees at Guantanamo Bay here as WP:NLIST violations, having fewer than a handful doesn't qualify you for a whole list, if the subject is notable bring it up there and if they're not List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is that way. Break out List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay into its own AfD, with over 200 detainees that's a whole separate issue worth examining and per AlexandraAVX should be discussed separately. Bestagon ⬡ 21:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus and there is one argument to treat these articles separately(as opposed to an "All" outcome). Also, would editors suggesting a Redirect identify their target article of choice? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Belgium, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably neutral between redirect and deletion, but if you want to redirect I'd think the target would be List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Bestagon ⬡ 14:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind (band)

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

Discovered page after the South Korean boy group of the same name. [1] and [2] don’t work. The only sources are a mention of the band and an interview, don’t see a reason to be kept. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Mostly trivial mentions under their old name. Thoroughly checked newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com and got the same results. It's worth noting that reference 1 in the article does work (the wrong archive date is linked), but it is an interview in a now-defunct magazine (blog?) with questionable reliability. C F A 💬 03:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Together Under One Sun

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

Both the slogan and the event lack notability. There are barely any sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it would probably be better to have the article moved to '20th anniversary celebrations of the independence of the Republic of Macedonia'. The event seems notable in its own right. --Soman (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Denmark, Ottawa

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

Article merely confirms it exists. No third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Denmark, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Canada–Denmark relations. This is clearly an improper SPINOUT, not mentioned at the parent other than "see also". The reverse embassy is mentioned at length. Why wasn't an ATD proposed?! gidonb (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Canada–Denmark relations, per Gidonb. Svampesky (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't an embassy with multiple consulates be kept? Machinehert (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what??? Embassies are central institutions in bilateral relationship so the first thing we should look at with embassies are the bilateral relationship articles. Are the embassies covered there, to what extent, is a SPINOFF justified? Bilateral relationship articles often are short, making the SPINOFFs usually unjustified. Prodding is never an option, deleting is rarely an option. An AfD for an embassy without ATDs at the very least debated (usually these should be suggested) is sloppy. Very sloppy. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norsk ordbok (Riksmål)

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

I could not find anything about this dictionary, but it is admittedly in Norwegian and my source searching may have been impaired by that. There are a decent amount of non-sigcov hits for a dictionary which makes me suspect there is something I am unable to find, particularly due to the language thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Norway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then why did you nominate it to be deleted instead of asking a Norwegian speaker? Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who would I have asked? This article has sat untouched for twenty years. Afd is the only appreciable way to actually get eyes on it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. C F A 💬 03:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Are these all referring to the same dictionary? This article seems to be on the illustrated version. The title is common but I don't think they're all the same work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CFA, your search is unfortunately misguided. Every single one of your sources are undoubtedly about Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB). Geschichte (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. We'll I'm not going to be of much help then. I wouldn't know where to look for anything else. C F A 💬 14:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's one review for 1993 edition: https://tidsskrift.dk/lexn/article/download/19107/16740 Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La sangre sobre la tierra

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

Found no significant coverage on this book. Redirect to author Alejandro Carrión? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Poetry. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuichi Sakamoto. Conversazioni

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

I found a few passing mentions here and here but no sigcov. There is something here; it's in Japanese and I do not understand it but it does not look like sigcov either.

Redirect to author Massimo Milano? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Massimo Milano (the author). It looks like a niche publication for an esoteric audience, and at least in English I can find no in-depth reviews or other coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. Not sure why this was brought to AfD, since the page was clearly not suitable for mainspace. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Habsburg-Laufenburg

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

Wibbit23 (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for failing WP:GNG. The current article has no refences listed, however that could be solved by incubating to the draftspace. The reason for deletion is that the resulting google searches on the subject do not return any non-trivial WP:RS. Therefore, this would not be a notable subject and should not be included in the namespace. Wibbit23 (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clue (information)

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

As an article for concept of a clue, I don't really like. For a simple concept, it is as dull as an article for the concept of quality, say for, which there is not because that page is just a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary may provide explanations on how to improve this article, but I'm focused on deleting it. So, what do you think? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Social science. C F A 💬 04:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This type of article is known as a broad-concept article and they can often be hard to write without looking like dictionary definitions. Theoretically there probably should be another broad-concept article at Quality, but there isn't. Since this is such a common term, I don't see how this wouldn't meet GNG. C F A 💬 04:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article defines or gives examples of 1) the concept (information), 2) its different values (share/give/pay), 3) how it is relayed (discovered/shared), 4) its mechanic (ludeme/cheat), 5) its format (straight/cryptic/riddles/contradictions) 6) its etymology. All of this can eventually be expanded and more concrete exemples can be added. "clue" may seem to be a simple concept, but the article shows there are many aspects to it that may not seem obvious at first glance. Writing something that is obvious (or "dull") is because what is obvious to one reader may be a valuable insight to another. As stated in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_differences, Wiktionary entries are about words themselves, while Wikipedia entries are articles about what words denote. This article falls into the latter category. --Bensin (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article fails to demonstrate it can stand on its own as a broad concept article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, the following are dictionary entries:

1) Definitions ("contain nothing more than a definition") – No. The article also contains use, value, form, and examples. It also has a well sourced section on context clues.

2) Dictionary entries – No. "Encyclopedia articles are about [...] a concept", which is the case here.

3) Usage, slang, or idiom guides – No. "Clue" is not a slang term.

Please explain in what way you think the article fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. --Bensin (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fails (1) since it's nothing more than a couple of definitions, with the rest being WP:OR. Where are the sources on clues as a concept? If there were even a single one there, I might think differently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is more than definitions, as I listed in my previous response. Yes, I have had difficulties finding sources for clues in games, possibly because most of it is common knowledge. I'll try and find some. Is there a particular statement that you believe to be untrue? However, the section about context clues is well sourced. --Bensin (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added three book sources for the section about clues in games. --Bensin (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the sources being other dictionary entries tells you what you need to know.

The article also contains use, value, form, and examples those things are very typical of what you'd find in a dictionary, the corresponding wikitionary entry has all of those things. in fact usage guides are specifcally mentioned in point #3 that Bensin quoted above as being characteristic of a dictionary entry.

It also has a well sourced section on context clues that is just another dictionary definition of a related term - having two dictionary definitions doesn't mean the article fails NOTDICTIONARY any less. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources for context clues are dictionary entries. Those sources are articles that support the facts in the article.

Can you quote the part of the wikitionary entry that contains how clues (not the word clue) are used, their value, or their form? The wikipedia article is about what the word denotes, not about the word itself. --Bensin (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is also not in this article, save for few lines of OR. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is not in the article? What is unsourced original research? --Bensin (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't seem to be a broad-concept article, so much as a WP:CHIMERA article instead. I'm looking at the examples given at WP:BCA, and I just don't see this coming even close to any of them. Take the example of "particle" there (in physics). There's a core concept that all particles share that can be written about encyclopedically, as a broad topic. But the only thing that's common here is "a clue is something which hints at further knowledge". That's it, and that's merely a DICDEF, which isn't suitable for an entry here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:BCA there is a section "Common aspects of sports and games" which lists the article Dead ball. Would you call that article a chimera too? --Bensin (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a point to make, I fail to see it. You're pushing well into WP:BLUDGEONing territory here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an answer to the question in my post. --Bensin (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m leaning keep as a this could be a start to something much better. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFDs are not a vote count and I see arguments on both sides of whether or not this article meets WP:DICTIONARY or not and how that might impact whether to Keep or Delete this article. At least, that's how I judge the totatlity of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These changes have been made since the article was nominated for deletion. In short: 9 sources have been added, sturcture has improved with sections, three new sections have been added: "Context clues", "Clue words", and "See also". --Bensin (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (Uncertain, considering a redirect to Inference or similar instead) - The historian and semiotician Carlo Ginzburg refers to "conjectural disciplines",^[1] comparing the use of clues for making conjectures to the use of symptoms for making diagnoses. (Although, this type of theorizing seems more appropriate to include in Forensic science or Conjecture.) Dascal and Weizman (who appear to be some kind of philosophy-adjacent linguists?) proposed "a model of contextual information required for the interpretation of speaker's meaning in written texts. We have further differentiated between context when used for the determination of utterance meaning and speaker's meaning (- as a clue) and for the detection of gaps and mismatch (- as a cue)."^[2] Literary historian Franco Moretti writes of clues as a literary device and a historical trend in detective fiction (e.g. ^[3], where he cites historians, literary critics, philosophers, and psychologists all writing about clues!). All of the above are at least moderately cited. All of this is to say: trivially, the concept of a clue meets WP:GNG (and I think is clearly distinct from something like evidence). Should all of the above conceptual work be discussed on a page called Clue (information)? I'm a little skeptical of that. But I think it serves readers better to keep the article for the moment. WP:CHIMERA seems to suggest we create e.g. Clues in detective fiction, Epistemology of conjecture, and Context clue as separate articles, all linked from Clue.

A tangential comment: the disambiguation page Hint links to Clue (information) as the first entry. In education, there's a huge body of work on hints (what makes a good hint, how to create good hints, when and how to give hints, etc.) I don't think that "hints" as a concept should live on a page called "clue", so it should probably be a mission for a future editor to create Hint (education). Suriname0 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even in its improved form, this article is not much more than a definition with subsections of several different concepts that don't really have that much in common besides their all fitting under the extremely loose overarching definition of a "clue". This would be like having an article for Object where the philosophical definition, the notion as used in programming, and an astronomical object are all subsections under a lead which gives the dictionary definition. The stuff Suriname0 talks about seems interesting but probably deserves its own article separate from this. ― novov (t c) 05:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Clues, Myths and the Historical Method. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1989. ISBN 0-8018-4388-X.
^ Weizman, Elda; Dascal, Marcelo (1991-01-01). "ON CLUES AND CUES: STRATEGIES OF TEXT-UNDERSTANDING". Journal of Literary Semantics. 20 (1): 18–30. doi:10.1515/jlse.1991.20.1.18. ISSN 1613-3838.
^ Moretti, Franco (2000). "The Slaughterhouse of Literature". MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly. 61 (1): 207–227. ISSN 1527-1943.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus, can participants reexamine the article after improvements to it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Commercial Law

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

I added three sources to this article, as it had previously been unsourced for 19 years, but I don't think any are helpful for notability. The first merely says that the book was published and what it was about, the second is a book that cites the book and summarizes its arguments, and the third is a review from a British politician's personal website which would be useful however owing to its self published nature is probably not countable for notability. Nothing that actually discusses the book, not enough for WP:NBOOK.

It is frustrating that this book appears to be non-notable, as it appears to be very highly cited (confounding my effort to find discussion of it). Redirect to Mohammad Hashim Kamali? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed square cupola

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

No sources are mentioned about the crossed square cupola. It is merely an exhibition and the problem of arranging images had already been discussed in WT:WPM. Also, many related articles on those tables, I suppose, does not have any sources. That being said, I think they could possibly be deleted together in here, but sadly this is for one article only. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Cupola (geometry) § Star-cupolae. Part of an infinite family of such shapes with no evidence of independent individual notability. If it had occurred to me to initiate deletion proceedings on this I would have tried WP:BLAR first, but apparently that was already tried unsuccessfully ten years ago. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man or bear

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

Notability; Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme, and not every Twitter drama or meme can have its own Wikipedia page. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I won't cast an actual !vote because I found this AfD through an off-wiki discussion but... really, notability? The references in the article include extensive coverage from several major news organizations. A GNG pass with flying colors from what I can see. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SUSTAINED. All the media articles are from within a timespan of a few weeks or months. Nobody's going to remember this meme a year from now. Hell, people barely remember it already. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:GNG clearly isn't a concern here considering how much sourcing is available, and we can't exactly predict whether the meme will remain popular or not. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have to predict much; almost all the sources are from late April to early May. The meme's already long since died. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Sexuality and gender, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article, with all of its references, makes it abundantly apparent that the subject was a flash-in-the-pan viral meme without any significance beyond how many people heard about it and talked about it for about a month or two. This wasn't a scientific study performed by people looking to answer a question, it was the results of a content farm hunting for clips to post online. Not to mention the article has a good number of glaring issues, from the completely unnecessary "illustration" made from image cutouts to the whole section on "Scientific Validity" focusing on a seemingly relevant statistic rather than any insight into the methodology (which, ironically, is found in a previous section, but still comes from purely journalistic commentary). Kodiak42 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is not temporary. 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. This is not a biography where WP:BIO1E might apply, nor is any of the coverage "routine" (where WP:NOTNEWS might apply). It is clear that the outside world has already "taken notice of it" and it is thus a notable topic. C F A 💬 03:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand women's national under-18 softball team

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

The subject does not meet the WP:NTEAM or WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The only sources in the article are primary and a cursory search didn't reveal anything that would establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Softball and Thailand. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSJX-LP

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rumal

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

Low quality article about a relatively non notable event with limited coverage within sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a quick glance at Google books there are various mentions of this battle. Notability is not temporary, so if it was notable at the time it is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. AfD is not the place to raise quality concerns. --Soman (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman None of the sources have any WP:SIGCOV significant coverage of the topic. This seems like it would be better suited for a consolidated page like Hill States-Sikh wars. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This all references incline in this article are more than sufficient with solidarity sourced apparently this article don’t need any kind of insertion 2402:8100:217A:E8B4:ADBA:BB28:A502:E613 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I am a frequent recipient of harassment and targeting by an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster-[23] who created more than a dozen burner accounts in just the past year solely to target me. His socks most recently targeted my AFDs and PRODs- [24] and [25] and [26] and [27]. The most recent examples are this- in which his IP/proxy removed my PROD on the article Katoch-Sikh war, 2 admins have stated that this was almost certainly HB block evading- [28] + [29]. He has also employed meat puppetry to target AFDs and PRODs. Note that this IP also created a draft for Katoch-Sikh war, the same page HB's sock targeted, very heavily indicating sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at play here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the IP has the exact same writing style as HB. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry what, It upon their own determination rather He isSockpuppet or intruder but definitely non of your expedition but suspiciously why did you creating pointless arguments you don't have any right to blast decretory statement on someone else you might face some serious consequences for such speculation @Southasianhistorian8 MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newly created account creating same articles that were AFDed and successfully deleted by me-[30] + [31]. Thanks. Will be taking to SPI or AN. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In addition to very obviously being HB's sock/meatpuppet, you can see the IP and the account are clearly operated by the same person since they both submitted their drafts (Battle of Rori Sahib, Battle of Ambala, and Katoch Sikh war) minutes apart from each other-[32] + [33]. At the very very least, these votes should be accorded zero weight and obviously proves my point of a sock/meat campaign to target AFDs/reinstate articles which aggrandize their religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you but how regressively your oppressing other on behalf of their religion with propagating your pathetic statement you need to be calm down sir for our both MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: MasterofRepulse has been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not the blocked editor you accused him of being a sock of. Again, let's keep this out of AFDLand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion in hopes of more participation. Please focus on the article, its sources and whether or not notability is established. Stop making accusations about other editors, it doesn't help whatever argument you are making. If you suspect sockpuppetry, head to SPI, don't bring it up here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could only find trivial namedrops in books. No significant coverage. C F A 💬 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The source genuinely incline the subject sustainably prior to the broader spectrum of historical event took place in Punjab convicting Battle of Rumal and numerously mentioned on various intermediating topics so in this case deletion is unnecessary for sure 14.247.79.217 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bajrur

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

Low quality article about a non notable event with limited coverage within sources + the third ref does not contain a link to a book whose content can be verified. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sources (you can search within the third and see the lone sentence mentioning Bajrur) none call this the "Battle of Bajrur". It appears to have been a military action that doesn't even warrant a full paragraph's mention in any of the sources. The sourcing doesn't seem to be there for calling it a named battle, or retaining a Wikipedia article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yehuda Glantz

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

No indication this meets WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:BASIC. Can only find trivial mentions. C F A 💬 01:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Israel, and Argentina. C F A 💬 01:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Clues, Myths and the Historical Method. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1989. ISBN 0-8018-4388-X.

[2] Weizman, Elda; Dascal, Marcelo (1991-01-01). "ON CLUES AND CUES: STRATEGIES OF TEXT-UNDERSTANDING". Journal of Literary Semantics. 20 (1): 18–30. doi:10.1515/jlse.1991.20.1.18. ISSN 1613-3838.

[3] Moretti, Franco (2000). "The Slaughterhouse of Literature". MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly. 61 (1): 207–227. ISSN 1527-1943.

[1]

[2]

[3]