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

< September 12	September 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Cannon Trading Company, Inc.

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. No good sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve : Seeing the sources listed not sure where the subject is notable. Better to incubate in draftspace.Nirmalburlakoti (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 TAC Cup Girls season

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

I am bundle-nominating all league season pages of the Talent League Girls competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates the six articles listed below.

On balance, these articles fail WP:GNG. This competition does not garner the level of coverage or references about its seasons and results to justify having season-by-season articles. I include the italicised caveat because, as this is the main underage recruitment competition in Victoria, the league's players and structure do receive some non-routine individual coverage, as any WP:BEFORE search will attest; but this coverage is mostly focussed on the league's function as an under-aged talent pathway. The seasons themselves (i.e. who won/lost, grand finalists, etc.) receive only passing WP:ROUTINE coverage. Existing references in all six articles are sparse, and either come from databases or non-indepenent sources.

I see no valid alternative to deletion, and that all content worth saving is already found on the main Talent League Girls page.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all part of the same bundle of seasons:

Aspirex (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 08:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 TAC Cup season (similar competition for men's football) there's a strong apparent case for deletion here. – Teratix ₵ 02:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to hear from more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 VFL Women's season

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

I am bundle-nominating all league season pages of the VFL Women's competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates eight articles.

On balance, these articles fail WP:GNG, and this competition does not garner the level of coverage or references to justify having season-by-season articles. Existing references across all nine articles are almost exclusively non-independent sources (from the league's website, clubs' websites and scores databases), occasionally with a brief WP:ROUTINE article about the grand final result; in particular, although the recent articles have healthy-looking reference counts, it's largely padded by short non-independent, routine articles from club websites which fill out the tables of coaches, captains and best-and-fairest winners. WP:BEFORE searches for "VFL Women's" and "VFL Women's season", Google-filtered for news and excluding afl.com.au results, and the results are a very thin collection of local newspaper clippings which are closer to human interest stories than sports WP:SIGCOV.

I see no valid alternative to deletion, and that all content worth saving is already found on VFL Women's and List of VFL Women's premiers.

I am also nominating the following related pages under the bundle:

Aspirex (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 08:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Competition receives WP:SIGCOV from what is left of the News Corporation legacy media, both at the statewide and local level. ProQuest has approx 400 keyword filtered references (there was 804 on my first pass through) for "VFL women" for the 2016 season alone, with spikes around the Grand Final and VFL/W Awards; across News, Fairfax/Nine and other Australian news sources. I find this AfD to be WP:POINTY and disingenuous. Merging these forks back into VFL Women's would result in an unweildy mess of an article. If the state-level competition of a women's Australian football competition does not warrant the little amount of referenced information currently present, are we WP:BUILDWP with useful encyclopedic content for future readers? Storm machine (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how exactly is this a Speedy Keep 2c (making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion)? Aspirex (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  the "2c" reference in my edit description was a shortening of my regular "2¢ plus GST" apologies for the confusion at your end. Storm machine (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Cool, thanks. Aspirex (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Storm machine's argument. I would be concerned if an article with 40+ references can be thrown away as part of a bulk AfD without any attempt from the nominator to improve it further. What is the end goal here? Gibbsy^spin 03:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon (comics)

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

Barely one legit entry, if that. No mention of Cannon in WildStorm article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Disambiguations, and Lists. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno

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

Tagged uncited for more than 15 years and only the 2 high schools have articles Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, Lists, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two notable high school entries to Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno#Schools. Left guide (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more input since the identified target is solely a link back here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the thoughtful relisting comment made me think twice. Nothing meaningful to salvage here from an encyclopedic standpoint. Left guide (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 13 September 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!} 05:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Tay

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

Notwithstanding serious BLP concerns, the subject simply isn't notable enough to have his own article. A Singaporean Chris Chan, if you will... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be non-notable as an online personality; coverage is mostly around some charges of distributing not so nice things online [1], I don't find much coverage from before or after this. I don't think that's criminal notability and I don't see general notability, due to the lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Driver

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Awards won are not major. IMDb would indicate WP:TOOSOON. Main claim to notability seems tied up with Swede Caroline, released only this year. Only remotely significant coverage about the person from the cited sources is the second one – a blog interview. An online search shows many sites that mention the subject's name, but they say nothing more about him. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself (specifically Brook Driver). I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MNLewis21: to avoid deletion, the article needs to show evidence of significant coverage of Driver himself – not Deadbeat Films or other affiliated topics – in reliable, independent sources. None of the sources currently cited in the article meets that requirement, as they are either non-independent (e.g. deadbeatfilms.co.uk), blogs (e.g. blog.finaldraft.com; see WP:BLOGS), or trivial mentions of Driver (e.g. deadline.com). Unfortunately, articles that are started through conflict-of-interest editing, as this one apparently was, are very unlikely to meet Wikipedia's topic notability and sourcing requirements, so usually end up being deleted. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do very much appreciate your help and clarifications. If anything, I'll be backing these up and, if possible, we can start fresh. MNLewis21 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MNLewis21 , it definitely doesn't work that way here as you thought. Gabriel (……?) 17:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NDIRECTOR. I might be open to draftifying if others are, since this is probably a WP:TOOSOON case, but I am concerned that a draft hanging out there would be too tempting for a conflicted editor who doesn't show understanding of our policies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swede Caroline: Some coverage for the short film that mentions this person, I don't find much of anything otherwise. Not terribly notable, yet. TOOSOON Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 14 September 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.

One weird trick

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

Seems to rely heavily on pulling together various articles on various people's ads that all use a similar format, but not necessarily proving that the phase "one weird trick" is notable. As an alternative we might be able to use the one weird trick of merging the article with chumbox, which is the ad format in which these usually appear. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Slate-sourced information into chumbox per nom. The Slate source is the only source that doesn't require synthesis to include into the article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Network Abuse Clearinghouse

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

I can find reference to email abuse and spamming, but nothing to indicate notability for the org/website. The book mentions are just the same as here, confirmation it existed. Has been deleted once (ancient history, pre CSDs) so didn't think PROD appropriate. Star Mississippi 20:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Hensen

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this ice skater to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and this blog post, hardly significant coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Briefly mentioned here [2], that's about all. I don't see notability with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any significant coverage here to meet the WP:GNG, either through multiple internet searches or newspapers.com. Let'srun (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattias Männilaan

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The PROD contestor proposed several sources on the talk page, but they are all WP:ROUTINE match coverage and transfer news items, none of them providing SIGCOV of this athlete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Estonia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any sources that could be suitable for this article, only profiles. Alon9393 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look here [3] please. There are dozens of articles directly about that person. Even a short documentary [4]. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. I don't believe the nominator checked all the 79 sources that Soccernet.ee has about the person. And no, they are not WP:Routine (which would be scores and squad line-ups). Here's more interviews from saaremaasport Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have no idea, what about the sources also at ru:Мяннилаан, Маттиас ? Are those any good? Govvy (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA career ejections leaders

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

Not covered by enough reliable say as List of shortest players in NBA history and therefore fails WP:NLIST. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I found [5], [6], and [7], which are probably enough to meet WP:NLIST. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did see those but those didn't seem super reliable to me, maybe the radio one is. The 3rd one, Marca is described on Wiki as a tabloid so I would count that as reliable. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources presented above and in the article combine for a total of four sufficient sources (I excluded one overlap source). Furthermore, the nomination rationale is flawed since it's based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. One can always find another article of a similar topic with more sources; we'd be deleting 99% of Wikipedia articles if that was valid grounds for deletion. What matters is whether this topic has enough sourcing available to satisfy WP:NLIST on its own merit; it does. Left guide (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this source from ClutchPoints, a site with a robust editorial policy that brings it into compliance with WP:RS guidelines. Left guide (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, List of shortest players in NBA history is probably one of the worst articles to look up to as an example of WP:NLIST. I examined it out of curiosity. None of the sources there count towards notability as independent secondary reliable sources (nba.com is a primary source), and the list itself is entirely synthesized. Left guide (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Basketball. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, I'd only consider the WZAK site reliable. Clutchpoints is always very bloggy and amateurish, mostly spewing trivial stats.—Bagumba (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: A source's reliability is based on how closely it aligns with WP:RS guidelines, not an individual editor's personal opinions about its format or the type of content it produces. Do you have evidence of ClutchPoints being unreliable? I've presented the site's editorial policy as evidence of reliability. Attached are Fadeawayworld's corrections policy, fact-checking policy, editorial guidelines, and ethics policy. Left guide (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEBYOTHERS is one guideline:
How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.
There's also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 437#ClutchPoints as an WP:RS. For notability decisions, I don't like to see all the source evidence scraping the barrel on reliability. —Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a background, the trend in newer sites is to hire inexperienced writers: Like at SB Nation and similar blog networks, the Maven site operators are independent contractors. They start with low base pay and no benefits, though company officials say they can make more if they drive traffic and ad sales.[8] In that Washington Post article, it covered Sports Illustrated and how Maven, now the Arena Group (which also owns Fadeaway World) was even hiring high schoolers to write. —Bagumba (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarettes and Valentines

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

To start things off, I want to make it clear this nomination is not about notability. I have zero doubts that Cigarettes and Valentines might meet the general notability guidelines, which would be hard to establish since most of the sourcing is interviews anyways, but I digress. Rather, my concern is the significant overlap between this and American Idiot. Because at the end of the day, that is what Cigarettes and Valentines boils down to, a failed project that came before American Idiot, and all sources available reflect this (including the ones I searched for prior to this). The project is only discussed within the context of American Idiot's production. There's not really anything worth discussing about Cigarettes and Valentines that isn't (or at least, can be) discussed in the covered in the American Idiot article. There's also a problem related to how we do not know, nor may we ever know, what Cigarettes and Valentine's was going to be, or what it had. Based on that, I think that even if all statements in this article were cited to reliable sources (which, at present, they are not), it runs the risk of coming off as spreading rumors, or in others terms original research or sourcing synth. Because of these reasons, I believe that Cigarettes and Valentines fails NOPAGE, and should be redirected to the American Idiot article.

As for the song, I highly doubt that it is independently notable from Awesome as Fuck based on the present sourcing, as it only discusses this one specific performance of the song, and nothing beyond that. And combining this album and this song into one article to try and make something worthwhile comes off as a coatrack. λ NegativeMP1 21:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. λ NegativeMP1 21:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah F. Russell

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

Delete per WP:GNG. As per new policy, unless otherwise notable, new Article III Judge articles are incubated in draft space until the individual is actually confirmed by the Senate. Additionally, a draft article already exists for this individual. So this article should not be moved, but should simple be deleted outright. Safiel (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the nom has noted, federal judicial nominees aren't inherently notable, and the WP:GNG is not met here due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alptekin Aydin

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

A healthcare practitioner who runs a small business with some legal consulting on the side. Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC nor GNG. Created by a single-purposes account, and the content leans towards pitching for business. Sources are mostly routine listings, youtube videos and website that aren't independent of the subject. Klbrain (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main notability claim seems to be known for his work in neuromodulation therapies, including the development of QEEG-guided personalized AI-based neuromodulation therapy (QPAN), but I haven't found any evidence that he's known for that at all. This google scholar profile is someone else. Searching for his name and "qpan" gets zero hits on scholar, four hits on google (two of which are his own website). -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise and Hell

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

The merge discussion at Talk:Paradise and Hell#Merge with The Haywain Triptych came to the conclusion that the page is a misattribution, but not one that is discussed in reliable sources and hence is better deleted rather than being merged or redirected. Klbrain (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Klbrain (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other discussion. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeetpedia

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

Unclear notability, and the sources cited may be fake; at least they link to the wrong pages. Batrachoseps (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, Websites, and India. Batrachoseps (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep, used sources are completely fake.–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 22:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Moore (footballer, born 2003)

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

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. No significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping. Giant Snowman 20:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again this page is not "pretty much match reports and stats sites"!

Please check the sources and READ the article as well as sources before making false statements about another one of my pages EnglishDude98 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is made up of one more type of source: primary sources. In general that means sources created by himself, his family, his employer or his association - in this case, all news published by his own club are primary. They can be used, but do not provide notability for a subject. Geschichte (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - where is the significant coverage? The fact that @EnglishDude98: does not understand notability requirements remains concerning. Giant Snowman 06:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article shouldn't have been Prod'ed in the first place, because there are multiple citations in play, all-be-it mostly primary, makes it not an article you can PROD. There are some secondary sources on there, but many people call them routine coverage. @EnglishDude98: I suggest you read through WP:V and try and find those sources which users today would call WP:SIGCOV. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will check later, thanks for the help and advice in this matter @Govvy EnglishDude98 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Steinbachek

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

All reliable standalone coverage on the page is about the subject's death, the only other reliable source is about a song that the subject's group made, while the rest are WP:NOTRS sources like IMDB and music fan sites. Pretty clear failure of WP:NMUSICBIO. Should be redirected to Bronski Beat. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of similar independent notability issues. All standalone coverage of Bronski is in obituaries, while the only other sources presented are an article about his band, an unreliable fansite, and an interview which is a primary source. No independent notability here either, and should similarly be redirected to Bronski Beat because of the notability issues:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both received significant independent coverage in a number of major news and music news outlets. The idea that an obituary written about a person is "about his death" rather than a celebration of his life seems a bit over the top. I don't know of any guideline or consensus that a non-paid obituary is not counted for notability. It's not just those two either:

I could see an argument WP:BANDMEMBER applies here although with a band this influential I'd put my thumb on the scale for Steinbachek for other things like LGBTQ activism and film scoring. Steve Bronski is even more notable than Steinbachek because he wrote Smalltown Boy. Oblivy (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I disagree and I very much believe WP:BANDMEMBER applies. I'll admit that maybe saying that the obituaries are about their deaths rather than celebrations of their lives was unduly harsh, but the pieces objectively only exist because their subjects passed away. I'm not finding virtually anything in reliable sourcing regarding Steinbachek's activism or film score work, and Bronski does not inherit notability from being one of three co-writers on a song that was a top 3 hit in the U.K. and a top 50 hit in the U.S. If you want to find sources that solely focus on the subjects that that meet WP:V and WP:RS and add them to the article, go for it -- I might even walk this back if you can find enough, but for now outside of their passings I just don't think there's enough coverage of either of them for their standalone articles to quite meet WP:NMUSIC. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that major news-outlet obituaries "only exist because their subjects pass away" is more than a wee bit reductive. Yes, they are occasioned by the death, but they are written because the person was notable. Oblivy (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an obituary was published by a reliable source does not automatically make the subject independently notable by Wikipedia standards -- to prove my point, I will direct you to two deletion discussions about deceased musicians, WP:Articles for deletion/Koopsta Knicca and WP:Articles for deletion/Lil Phat, both from this year (the former actually started by me, not entirely coincidentally). In both cases, despite there being tributes written by sources that pass WP:RS (including here and here, respectively), there was consensus at both discussions that there was not enough coverage of these artists for the purposes of standalone articles outside of their deaths, with the former article being redirected to the notable group he was a member of, and the latter being redirected to a U.S. top 10 hit he appeared on and had a co-writing credit for. Personally, I feel that Steinbachek and Bronski are in the exact same boat, more or less -- just because they were members of an unquestionably notable group whose music charted and went platinum in various nations does not mean they individually pass WP:NMUSICBIO, since notability is not inherited and outside of them dying the sourcing in both articles does not appear to establish it outside of the context of the group. I'm not trying to persuade you to change your vote or anything, but I really don't see enough in either article that couldn't just be included in the Bronski Beat article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Bronski Beat. I don't see sufficient justification for standalone articles, but detail on the band members should be included there. --Michig (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitworth's three plates method

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

The topic is already in the page Flatness (manufacturing); I propose merging the content into that page and turning this into a redirect. I don't see a rationale for having it isolated. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maddi Wilde

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. A few transactional announcements (2023, 2024), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I originally reviewed this article and passed it because a brief search for sources I did found 1 2 plus the articles listed in the nomination, all of which are secondary sourced articles about her, and include more than trivial content. Some of them are based around transfer announcements, but they all contain more than a passing mention with content such as quotes and information about her as a player. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The routine transactional announcements have two sentences of coverage each, with the rest being quotes. Every mention of Wilde in the OneFootball article is a re-hashing of something she said while the WSLFullTime article is another routine transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm missing a WP:NSPORTS policy here but what is the policy that says articles about transactions don't count towards coverage? I would also dispute the characterization of the OneFootball article. It's an article focusing on coverage of things she said and her performance on the field as well as her relation to the team, she is the primary subject of the article; I can't really see anything that wouldn't make it WP:SIGCOV. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Abdi Hassan

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

Non-notable. Only sources are entries in tables showing the individual participated in the Olympics. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Europe of Sovereign Nations (party)

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

The relevant article already exists Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. The existence of a second article is abusive, all the more so if it offers the reader nothing different or new in terms of information. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose legally distinct entities: see ECR party & group; EPP party & group Braganza (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the essential difference between the two? Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one is a european party, the other is a group

FvD is member of the party but not the group Braganza (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like at the national level, European parties are extra-parliamentary entities, while political groups are entities that operate only within the confines of the (European) Parliament. Membership is different, leadership is different, rules are different, roles are different, names and logos are (often) different, etc. Julius Schwarz (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Indeed, seems like a clear case of confusing European political party and political group of the European Parliament. Should have read the disambiguation page Europe of Sovereign Nations. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Haoran (footballer, born 1993)

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

The claim to notability, playing 11 games in League One and a few minutes as a substitute in the highest league, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ning Weichen

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

The claim to notability, playing 17 minutes in the Portuguese second tier and 2 minutes in the Chinese Super League, as well as some on lower tiers, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, China, and Portugal. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Ziru

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

The claim to notability, playing 25 minutes in the Chinese Super League and some on the third tier, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ochicha

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

I couldn't find sources to verify that this meets WP:NPLACE/WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPLACE based on [9] and [10]. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Africa One Antonov An-26 crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor incident, gear collapses are common, also no major injuries or fatalities that add notability to it. Very few sources cover it, and the article is poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. A search yields no news coverage, no significant coverage, no in-depth coverage and no secondary sources. Perhaps the fact that it did result in some lasting effects could make it notable, as noted in the article, but other than that, it practically fails every other policy and guideline as noted above and I don't think this would justify a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Şarkı

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

Hard to search for sources as I am not a native speaker and the word means “song”. Seems unlikely to be notable but instead of deleting could perhaps be merged? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are located discussing the specific song form, then a merge could be sensible. As is, however, I think either a redirect to fasıl or the definition on Wiktionary (via {{wiktred}}) would make the most sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it is a stub, the article is about a specific musical form, which is notable on its own. [11] A potential merge would be an editorial dicussion, not an AfD discussion.

TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Üçköprü

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

This confluence is not significant in itself as the river is small - no objection to merging into the river article Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yer-sub

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

Although there are some sources such as http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/64/14_Yerzhanova%20et%20al.pdf I am not sure there are enough to show notability for a stand-alone article. As an alternative to deletion maybe merge into Tengriism? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, Central Asia, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Bangladesh-India border clash

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

The description of events is one-sided, lacking verification from multiple credible sources. Additionally, there are significant discrepancies in the reported details and conflicting accounts that make it unreliable. The article's content does not meet the standards for inclusion and accuracy expected in a balanced historical record. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks any lasting coverage. Lorstaking (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a notable clash. If you would like to delete this, Please also delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan. I Will attempt to add more sources, I kind of forgot about this page, that I created. I should have added more sources earlier. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article most of the current citations are Bangladesh-based like Dhaka report, The Daily Observer Bangladesh, bdnews24. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the reported dates of the clash—some sources mention April 16[12], others April 17[13], and some April 18[14]. These discrepancies undermine the article’s reliability. The incident story have various contradiaction as compared to Indian news site with Bangladesh based news site. Additionally, minor conflicts like these, which lack significant international coverage, often do not meet the notability criteria required for inclusion on Wikipedia. The comparison to India-Pakistan conflicts is not relevant here, as the notability and coverage of each conflict should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Nxcrypto Message 09:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This happens regularly and is nothing surprising. WP:GNG has to be satisfied. Even right now, Bangladesh is saying that Indian BSF is killing Bangladeshis.[15] The above argument against the deletion that "delete some pages About clashes between India and Pakistan" is baseless. Azuredivay (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Torneo de Copa 2018–2019

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

I could not find significant coverage of the topic or reliable sources, the article only has a mere existence. Alon9393 (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Panama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Incomplete with zero sources. It may be redone in the future, but now it is a case for WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Diario

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

I can't even find a reference that talks about this medium and without references or encyclopedic context there is no way to establish notoriety. Alon9393 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Panama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boeraans

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

Doesn't seem to exist in this form and potentially a nationalist fiction by the creator. The only mention of "Boeraans" in reliable sources is here which stated Boerestaat Party Robert van Tonder used it to describe certain types of Afrikaans. The academic sources Taalportal does not describe any such dialect grouping as seen here. All cited websites in previous editions did not contain any significant material and seem to be Afrikaner nationalist proposals rather than sources describing actual language use. MSG17 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and South Africa. MSG17 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Africa (Weezer cover)

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

Per WP:SPLIT and WP:NCOVER, which has been misinterpreted persistently. The statement reads: "Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably detailed based on facts independent of the original."

The article is not "reasonably detailed" to claim a split from Africa (Toto song). In fact, if you visit Africa (Toto song)#Weezer cover, you'll read the same content written at Africa (Weezer cover)#Release. Then we have a music video and chart sections. Nothing here indicates content that cannot be on the main page. NCOVER was specifically created for articles like The Star-Spangled Banner and The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston recording). The Houston cover is independent of the US anthem because it has multiple facts about its performance, including being a charity single. We don't split covers merely because they were released and become more or less notable than the original version, including but not limited to Don't Cha (The Pussycat Dolls song), I Will Always Love You (Whitney Houston song), Fever (Beyoncé Knowles song), or American Pie (Madonna song), among thousands of examples. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: there is more information in the standalone article than is currently included in the original section, namely about the music video and charting, but all of that could be included in the original and it wouldn't take up so much space as to cause any issues. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially if someone rewrote and streamlined the prose a bit, which is pretty rough right now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Africa (Toto song), and some protection may be necessary to prevent a reversal by those who have interpreted the policies incorrectly. Yes, there is some minor encyclopedic info on this Weezer version, but the nominator is correct on why it should not have its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Clement Daniels

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

Only one, primary, source in article, no significant sources found during WP:BEFORE check. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 16:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish organised crime in Great Britain

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

At the moment the article does not have enough sources but as an alternative to deletion maybe it should be merged into Gangs in the United Kingdom or Crime in the United Kingdom? Unless anyone likes to add more cites and maybe expand it? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tabarna

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

If this is true it should probably be merged - but to where?

However as it was tagged uncited a decade ago it might be false it which case it should be deleted. I am not really competent to judge whether the possible sources I found such as https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/jlr-2016-133-409/html are reliable but I am sure one of you knows Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fashion events in the United States

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

I don't see any reason for this list to be split from List of fashion events. I propose merging the content to the main article. Patientia1 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Fashion, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge The list is already at List of fashion events#United States so just do it and redirect. This is so obviously duplicative and unnecessary you don't need to pull others in unless someone objects. AFD is typically not the place to propose mergers either. Reywas92^Talk 17:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ōtākaro FC

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

This relatively new youth-only football club fails WP:GNG; there is no WP:SIGCOV of the club in independent, secondary, reliable sources. (It may just be WP:TOOSOON since this club isn't yet two years old, so I would support draftification as an AtD if other editors agree, but deletion is also an appropriate outcome.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and New Zealand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's WP:TOOSOON fails WP:GNG and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 16:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. It's merely a football school. Svartner (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sigcov. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IT Journalism Awards

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

There is no independent WP:SIGCOV for this niche regional industry awards program. All of the coverage is either on the award program's own site, or it's in news outlets touting their own journalists' wins and nominations and thus not independent. A handful of WP:TRADES coverage items as well but that doesn't contribute to notability and thus this subject fails WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Awards, Technology, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it a bit today - it does get quite good coverage in mainstream media, has been running for 21 years, has quite a lot of incoming links, and IMO passes GNG now, if it didn't before. Gaming is also another topic which probably receives less coverage in WP than its popularity would suggest (and one I know little about), and these awards are highly prized in that industry. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources have you added that you think are independent and reliable? They’re still mainstream sources talking about their own wins in the awards (and thus not independent), self published sources (not reliable) or trade publications (not independent). Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Hostel

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Satya N. Gupta

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

No indication of notability per WP:NBASIC. C F A 💬 14:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Transportation, and Haryana. C F A 💬 14:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of any notability, WP:GNG or otherwise. (Also, so poorly referenced that one wonders where all this information came from, but that's not a matter for this AfD.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's likewise a lot of unsourced information in article creator's Ravindra Kumar Mishra, who like Mr. Gupta works for both SAAM CorpAdvisors Pvt Ltd and the ITU-APT Foundation of India. Wikishovel (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this article is kept, it should be moved to Satya N. Gupta, see WP:TITLESINTITLES. It's unclear why the title "Dr." is used, since the Centre For Electronics Design And Technology where he did his postgraduate studies doesn't appear to award doctorates, and the article doesn't mention an honorary doctorate. Wikishovel (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. The best I could find was passing quotes from him in the Business Standard: [16], [17], in articles about technology. Wikishovel (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient independent coverage. Cortador (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in a newspaper from Jamaica [18]. With the Wales newspaper, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep coverage available, see first comment --ProudWatermelon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, ProudWatermelon, are you ignoring my advice or making a joke? Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess rewriting the same argument as more value, sure ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Sigh" was just unnecessarily rude and provocative ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Jamaica Gleaner piece reads as promotional rather than as journalism. Sandstein 06:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WalesOnline source is essentially a promotional interview. Nothing else presented or found remotely meeting RS. BusterD (talk) 04:44, 14 September 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.

Box Cricket League

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable cricket tournaments that clearly fail WP:GNG. Just because they were in TV, that doesn't make them notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Cricket, India, and Punjab. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Sadik

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Potentially notable but currently no indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 12:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Judaism, and Israel. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apostate Prophet

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

None of the given sources are reliable (YouTube, Reddit, etc.), so nothing to contribute to WP:GNG in any way. A quick WP:BEFORE only gives an interview to Jewish News Syndicate (primary, doesn't count for notability) and a report on one of his presentations by edhat.com. I am not sure whether that last source is reliable, but it doesn't seem to be enough for GNG either way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Germany, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is just no reliable sources even close to providing notability for this subject. No evidence of GNG whatsoever. Thismess (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the content added three days ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am discounting the addition from several days ago (per relisting comment) as it is about the aunt's death, not a secondary-sourced discussion of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizardJr8 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this discussion as Keep based on consensus and also the fact that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sierra Bullones

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

Reason This page does not meet Wikipedia's notability and content standards for historical events. The article lacks reliable sources and citations to verify the claims made about the battle. Furthermore, the page has not been expanded or maintained to provide substantial and detailed information about the event. Given that the topic does not appear in notable historical references or publications and lacks significant coverage from academic or reliable sources, I believe this page does not fulfill the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Tahanido (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that 7 cited sources (including the Royal Academy of History, the University of Valencia, diaries of people who participated in the war and the Cambridge University Press) are enough to verify that this event happened and there are no reasons at all to delete this article. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Morocco, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was surprised how nonsensical this rationale was until I realised it was 100% AI-generated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:44, 13 September 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.

Pacific Cigarette Company

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

cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here. In addition, the article has not been updated for a long time Moarnighar (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems like this company has decent news coverage in local sources. The article was just recently created in April 2024. Rainsage (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Almaský

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

The claim to notability, playing 239 minutes on Slovakia’s highest level, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Xegma(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Yanlin

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

The claim to notability, playing 8 games in Hong Kong, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Xegma(talk) 13:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libor Koníček

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

The claim to notability, playing 142 minutes on Slovakia’s highest level, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Xegma(talk) 13:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Hao (footballer)

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

The claim to notability, playing 111 minutes in the Chinese Super League, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Xegma(talk) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Wilson (businessman)

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

The topic may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards under WP or the General Notability Guidelines due to insufficient coverage from reliable, independent sources. More independent media references are required to demonstrate significant coverage and establish notability. Moarnighar (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Florida, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gufic Biosciences Ltd

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

The topic may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as it lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable news sources. Moarnighar (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any.do

AfDs for this article:

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

cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Moarnighar (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Software, Websites, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources brought up in the last AfD (which was from late July, a little less than two months ago), which @Moarnighar should address. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Securities

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

The topic may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards under WP, as it lacks sufficient coverage by reliable, independent news sources. More independent media references are needed to establish notability beyond promotional content. Moarnighar (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PensionBee

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

Unlikely to meet NCORP; no reliable sources The editing spirit (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and this seem like independent, significant and reliable sources and there's even more coverage in the news search example. Article needs improvement. Orange sticker (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qiddiya Coast Stadium

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

It's WP:TOOSOON and it is set to be built for 3 years from now.

I'm also nominating the following:

Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2034 FIFA World Cup#Venues – To avoid recreating the article unnecessarily. Svartner (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henrich Ručkay

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability for this Slovak ice hockey player. A source that is the closest to significant coverage is Teraz. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is likewise an unsourced stub, which may help copy over English article otherwise. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny K. Davis

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

References do not pass WP:SIRS so fails WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Comeaux

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Adu Kwakye

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

Totally AI-generated text that does not match the sources used. Article subject is a non-notable arm wrestler, I can find only brief mentions of the individual; won silver in two categories in arm wrestling at the 2023 African Games. No extended coverage that I can discover and nothing like the content the article suggests, although I am in no way the best-placed to discover Ghanaian sources. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pickersgill-Cunliffe i sincerely appreciate your concern. we are currently running a contest on athletes that has participated in the African Games. This is a major tournament in Africa and a very notable one at that. We understand that these athletes are underrepresented in the media as they tend to focus more on other competitions like AFCON, Olympics among others. Media coverage has always been an issue here in Africa and we are trying in our own capacity not to let their achievements go unnoticed. I know other continents might not be able to relate to this constraint but I'd like to plead with you and other reviewers to resist from tagging subsequent articles for deletion. Thanks for your cooperation. Sunkanmi

Weak keep: Coverage [19], [20], [21], not super extensive, but it confirms the career and wins. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by Oaktree b here each provide independent coverage of the subject and help this BLP meet the WP:GNG. Although some editing needs to happen here to improve the WP:NPOV, that is not a reason by itself to delete. Let'srun (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrenceburg Junction, Indiana

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

Baker is seemingly less than accurate about labelling things "villages", and it's clear from looking at the maps and aerials that this is, as one might expect, a railroad junction. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Institute for Educational Research Award for Outstanding Educational Research

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

No sources when searching in Google news, books and Scholar. Sources 4-11 merely confirm winners but are not significant coverage about the award itself. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 6 September 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!} 06:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of New Zealand national rugby league team test matches

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

Article relys on a single source, article is strangely formatted and isn't consistent with other similar articles, case for WP:TNT so a proper List of New Zealand national rugby league team results can be created.

Previously PRODed, and was reverted on the basis that the article could be improved and that I as PRODed nominator had changed the name of the page. Yes, article could be improved, but there is virtually nothing novel or useful on this page so don't see why edit history needs retaining for a new article "List of New Zealand national rugby league team results". Articles name was changed to better reflect the article content. But in reality, it is so far away from the standard way to display a list of national team results that it's best to be deleted. To fix this page would involve removing 99% of the content anyway. Mn1548 (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDB Traumnovelle (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (it really helps when you mention this in an edit summary) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and the article besides its definition is merely an example farm of unrelated examples that are better off examined in articles like cheating or corruption. It is tough to make sense of it, due to how seemingly random and far from each other each example is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buried Hearts

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

The article's title neither official nor confirmed as the English title from the independent secondary reliable sources. Also WP:TOOSOON. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Korea. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken in WP:TVSERIES, as long as the article had its creator, writer, and confirmed cast members with reliable sources, the article may be notable, and the title can be change if it's WP:COMMONTITLE. Aidillia (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidillia You're right about TVSERIES that's why I created a draft article of the drama but on COMMONTITLE I will disagree just for the same reason of my AfD rationale. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So should just moved it to the original title? Aidillia (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Canteen

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

Appears like an advertisement/promotion for the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Proposing deletion. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article aligns with various other government schemes in Andhra Pradesh, similar to initiatives of various states like Amma Unavagam, Amma Kudineer, Indira Canteens, and Ahar Yojana, which are all state-owned restaurant services. Additionally, I don't believe the language used is promotional in nature, so I'm unsure why you consider it to be advertisement/promotion for the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The article is well-supported by numerous reliable sources from reputable media sources as mentioned, thus I object this nomination.

The content that I have contributed is in-line and complying with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Copyrights principles of Wikipedia in my good faith. 456legend talk 07:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with @456legend that this just reads like a description of a public welfare program, with a bit of praise for the people who set it up but otherwise factual and neutral. The claim this is promotional is unfounded (unless you want to say The revival aims to continue providing affordable and nutritious meals to all individuals is puffery.)

For sources we have Times of India on the initial launch, and another from ToI on the relaunch, and an article from India today. At least - I stopped there because all three are significant coverage but I'll look further if other editors think these don't satisfy notability. Oblivy (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Gong

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

It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2018 PhD and assistant professor with a handful of citations. A prize for undergraduate work does not grant notability, nor does the CAREER grant. Performance on the IMO might tend to meet GNG, if it were widely covered by reliable independent sources, but about all I found was a passing mention in Wired. [22] Recently deleted by PROD and undeleted by request on WP:RFU. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. No evidence yet of significant achievement WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, Puerto Rico, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm very much in favor of showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, but the pedestal needs to be something they are already standing on, not something we place in front of them as an obstacle to trip over. She has not yet had the impact in post-student research needed for WP:PROF; although people at this point in their career can sometimes pass, doing so typically takes work with extraordinary impact and major prizes. Instead she is on a promising academic career track and if she keeps it up I would expect her to pass WP:PROF eventually, but eventually is not now. That leaves the IMO accomplishments and Schafer prize, which are separate enough to save the article from WP:BIO1E but would require in-depth coverage of her accomplishments in independent media for WP:GNG-based notability. I don't see that independent coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, I agree with all of the above. Like virtually all assistant professors, this is WP:TOOSOON.Qflib (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After an unsuccessful search for independent news coverage, I have to agree with the delete !votes. Spacepine (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as David Eppstein notes she has IMO accomplishments which don't have in-depth coverage but do have a couple of sentences in three reliable secondary sources. Agree she doesn't have enough yet for WP:PROF but may for WP:GNG depending how notable the math olympiad accomplishments are. Nnev66 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not about significance of accomplishments at all. It is about coverage of those accomplishments in multiple reliable sources, each published independently of the article subject and the events they describe, and with in-depth coverage of the article subject. What sources do you think contribute towards that criterion? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the two I was thinking of. I found a third but didn’t add it to the page because I wasn’t sure it would matter. Nnev66 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I saw someone added a NYTimes reference which I added to my list below. I changed my recommendation from “Weak keep” to “Keep”. There has been much better sourcing since the beginning of this discussion so I encourage folks who voted earlier to have another look. Nnev66 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the entirety of the coverage in the NYTimes about Gong, a sentence only half about her: "Since then, two female high school students, Alison Miller, from upstate New York, and Sherry Gong, whose parents emigrated to the United States from China, have made the United States team (they both won gold)." That is definitely not an in-depth source in the sense required by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a second sentence later on: “Ms. Miller, who is 22 and recently graduated from Harvard, and Ms. Gong, 19 and a Harvard sophomore, both cite Ms. Wood as their role model.” I had noted earlier that none of the references I found have more than two sentences about Gong - you had asked me to list the reliable secondary sources so I did. My original question was whether IMO achievements are notable - they have been covered in top sources. Nnev66 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable", in the context of an AfD, means that there exist reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, not merely that "they have been covered in top sources". So you found a second half-sentence in one source; two half-sentences is still not significant coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These four references have more coverage of the subject. Three were written to highlight winning the Alice T. Schafer Prize. Nnev66 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timmerman, Michelle B. (December 10, 2010). "Sherry Gong". The Harvard Crimson.

"Sherry Gong named Clay Olympiad Scholar". Clay Mathematics Institute. June 27, 2005. Archived from the original on 2012-05-11.

"Alice T. Schafer Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman 2011". awm-math.org. Association for Women in Mathematics.

"Math In The News | Sherry Gong Receives 2011 Alice T. Schafer Prize". Mathdl.maa.org. Mathematical Association of America. 2011-01-14. Archived from the original on 2012-03-08.

Nnev66 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McGuire, Annie; Collins, Donald (24 July 2002). "Mind-boggling games as the whiz-kids limber up for Glasgow Maths Olympiad". The Herald. ProQuest 332893451.

"Rising Stars". Science. 317 (5842): 1153. 31 August 2007. doi:10.1126/science.317.5842.1153c.

Rimer, Sara (10 October 2008). "Math Skills Suffer in U.S., Study Finds". The New York Times.
Nnev66 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A coverage in Chinese media was added.
"美国华裔女孩5次参加国际数学奥赛3次拿奖". news.sohu.com, 2007-08-12.

24.107.3.211 (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 24.107.3.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is Sherry Gong's mother. I saw your discussion about media coverage of Sherry Gong. I will not vote because of the conflict of interest, but I would like to contribute some information about in depth coverage about her that was in independent media in Puerto Rico, specifically, El Nuevo Dia (Puerto Rico's most circulated newspaper, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nuevo_D%C3%ADa) and The San Juan Star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_San_Juan_Daily_Star).

This coverage haven't been put online, but I have photos of the articles:

1. August 2, 2001: El Nueva Dia, page 22. See

https://ibb.co/FqhjzCX

2. August 3, 2001: El Nueva Dia, page 3. See

https://ibb.co/qMDPKGd

3. August 5, 2001: The San Juan Star, page 10. See

https://ibb.co/Jmd7Spn

4. September 16, 2003: El Nueva Dia, page 78. See

https://ibb.co/TH0N4Nz Sanjuanli (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Sherry Gong's mother. I hope she will become a regular contributor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately the only link of hers that I have been get to looks just like local Churnalism and is not enough to pass GNG. Of course, it is accepted by editors here that WP:Prof is failed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree. Not of welcoming Sherry Gong's mother and hoping she contributes to Wikipedia as I agree with that. But The San Juan Star article does not read like churnalism to me. The story has a human interest angle but it's written by a reporter who used to work for the Associated Press and provides significant coverage of Gong winning a silver medal at the IMO at age 11 when she was on the Puerto Rican team. It adds to the other IMO coverage of Gong. Nnev66 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. San Juan Star article is about Sherry got Silver medal and a Special Award for Original Solution at 2001 Math Olympiads for Central American & Caribbean, not for IMO. There is an article on El Nueva Dia talking about Sherry got Bronze medal on IMO 2003. Sanjuanli (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome and comments. I don't know which page you can not see. So I post them from another site. (El Nuevo Dia is considered Puerto Rico's newspaper of record.)

It seems I can not post here--so I post them in the Talk page. Sanjuanli (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gong is the only U.S. woman who won medals in both IMO and IPhO. This achievement qualifies her for a page. Significant improvements have been made on the page. The sections about IMO performance and coaching are rewritten with more details and independent references included. In the career section, Gong's notable contributions to mathematical research are included too. 128.252.229.153 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The research contributions are far too early in the subject's career to meet any of the eight criteria described in WP:NPROF. It's virtually impossible for an assistant professor to meet that standard and so WP:GNG is the only possibility. Qflib (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 128.252.229.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Just add my two cents to this debate. I think Sherry Gong can be truthfully characterized as a rising star who is known for her exceptional contributions to the mathematical community, particularly in inspiring and supporting young women in mathematics. Alongside Melanie Wood and Allison Miller, Sherry is one of the few female students to have represented the USA in the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) before 2024. Her accolades include one gold, two silver, and one bronze medal at the IMO, along with a silver medal at the International Physics Olympiad (IPhO). Since then, she has been instrumental in training and mentoring female students for the International Math Olympiads, the European Girls’ Math Olympiad (EGMO) and the China Girls Math Olympiad (CGMO). Her efforts have made a significant impact on the next generation of young women in mathematics. Her success has been covered by prominent media outlets in both the USA and China, including The New York Times, The Atlantic, the Herald (Glasgow), Science, and Sohu.

In short, I think what distinguishes Sherry from other rising stars is that she serves as a role model for American female students pursuing careers in mathematics and science. From this perspective, her impact on the mathematics community is in fact long-lasting. 67.252.7.30 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources to support those claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the comment! Here are the sources. Some may be duplicating what was already mentioned above. Sherry may not be at the spot light of the coverage, but the importance of her role should be evident.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/education/10math.html (NY Times)

https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209 (IMO record)

https://www.aapt.org/olympiad2006/ (IPhO record)

https://www.ams.org/news?news_id=836 (assistant coach)

https://www.egmo.org/people/person110/ (Leader, Deputy Leader)

https://www.myscience.org/news/wire/cmu_hosts_new_math_camp_for_high_school_girls-2022-cmu (math camp coach)

https://www.news-gazette.com/wkio/vipology-single/html_9787332c-8a77-11ec-84d7-235488f5ac90.html?id=114973&category=girl-power (math camp coach)

https://www.g2mathprogram.org/staff (G2 program for female students)

https://math.virginia.edu/2019/09/sherry-gong-lunch/ (AWM meeting) 67.252.7.30 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A chat over sandwiches is not a significant event in the life of an academic. Any time a scientist from another school comes to my university to present a colloquium talk for the physics department, we take them to lunch, and we invite students so they can have a casual conversation with the visitor. Talking up the importance of an event like that does Gong no favors. Indeed, it makes it sound like she is being hyped up by a public-relations crew that has no understanding of mathematics.

The G2 website is not an independent source. Anybody can put up a website and say things about themselves. Who, other than the G2 program, has written about the G2 program? Likewise, the "myscience.org" item is just a press release, a type of source that does us basically no good whatsoever, and on top of that, it doesn't even give Gong a single full sentence. The "news-gazette.com" page is even worse: it's a recycled press release, just scraped and churned so they can have some text on their website.

I'm all for showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, as David Eppstein put it above, but all we've got right now is fluff. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that we frequently take colloquium speakers to lunch. But it is rare that we invite a speaker for the purpose of meeting with students. This occurs only when the speaker has something exceptional that would benefit the students. Is it not so? 67.252.7.30 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although such things are very nice, they are almost never notable - and I've been invited to speak at universities for the sole purpose of meeting with students myself, and I am not notable. The only thing that would make it notable would be if it was covered by multiple independent, mainstream sources. So if the Boston Herald and the New York Times covered the colloquium event with focused articles on the colloquium then I'd agree that it was significant, but this is not the case. Please see WP:N.

Incidentally, can you please explain what you mean by "we?" Do you have a connection to the subject of the article? Qflib (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.252.7.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 128.194.2.54 has made few or no other edits other than to initiate a WP:PROD for Sherry Gong which led to this AfD discussion. The IP address is associated with Texas A&M University where the subject of the article is currently a professor. How much if at all does this matter? Nnev66 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have little enough to do with Texas A&M, and made my own independent assessment of notability before this nomination, which I take responsibility for. The answer to your question is "not at all" -- even if the IP was a banned user, WP:PROXYING would apply. I remain unconvinced that the series of passing mentions and non-independent coverage adds up to a pass of WP:BASIC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving my comment to where you thought it should go as I wasn't sure and for your answer to my question. I would have thought The Harvard Crimson or Mathematical Association of America were independent of the subject but I assume because the subject attended Harvard and received medals in math competitions they are not orthogonal. What about the Mom's scans of articles from Puerto Rican newspapers? It would make sense that there would be more excitement about the subject in Puerto Rico as she was the first from there to win a medal. Unfortunately I couldn't find The San Juan Star article in newspapers.com or Proquest. As I re-read WP:BASIC, it seems to me that the mentions in The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Science (magazine) are more than trivial. It's true there's no in-depth coverage but they are more than trivial in-passing mentions but rather acknowledgments of accomplishment at the International Math Olympiad. Nnev66 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local news coverage celebrating a local person's achievements, however admirable, is not enough for WP:NOTABLE. Also see WP:SUSTAINED. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Qflib (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak keep Per meeting criteria #2 of WP:NPROF. CaptainAngus (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF#C2 explicitly excludes student awards, even at the graduate school level. See the specific criteria notes, 2c. The only awards here are at the high school (IMO) and undergraduate (Schafer) levels. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't catch that. I changed my reco to weak keep, under criteria #7 of WP:NPROF, in that her unique achievement of winning both IMO and IPhO. CaptainAngus (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that these gold medals are not "winning", right? There were for instance 58 gold medalists at the 2024 IMO. Also, that is not even close to the purpose of PROF#C7, which is about making research contributions that have a significant impact on society, or being famous as a leading expert on some topic, not about achieving a good score in a high school competition. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you add the [failed verification] after "tying for seventh place out of 536 participants"

This fact is showed in reference [4]

https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209

In year 2007 of the above reference, it shows that her score was 32, rank 7, and relative 98.84%

Could you please add reference [4] at the place? Thank you. Sanjuanli (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are interpreting my [failed verification] tag incorrectly, despite the tag having a clearly stated rationale. It was entirely about the fact that, at the time I added the tag, the article claimed that she was one of four female US participants based on a source that listed three female US medalists, also, no, I will not participate in refbombing the article with tiny minutiae based on sources that have no depth of coverage of the subject. That is neither the way to build a Wikipedia article of any quality nor to find notability for the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed @David Eppstein's [failed verification] tag when I found a journal article on "The Gender Gap in Secondary School Mathematics at High Achievement Levels" reference which noted only three girls had participated on US teams in IMO (as of 2010) and re-wrote sentences to match sources. I was the one who moved the [failed verification] to the line about tying for seventh place out of 536 participants as this is not mentioned in the reference next to this line. Since reference [4] is already used in the article and it supports rank 7, score 32 I went ahead and added it at the end of the line. Since the source was already used once in the article I figured it was OK to use it again as it wasn't adding to the already long list of references that don't add to notability on their own and make it harder for editors to evaluate the article. Nnev66 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the article talk page and not on this AfD, right? Qflib (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Keep - good arguments on both sides. There's a bit of too-soon/one-more-coverage-needed, but there's also more risk to learning and to the encyclopedia if we delete and we have missed a source. The Math DL/Math in the News coverage ended up being the tipping point for me to move from weak delete to weak keep. We have one math organization covering with a full article an award given by a different math organization. This meets my (and I think WP's) definition of a significant prize, and not a run-of-the-mill student award. That plus the notability-from-one-thousand small articles is a keep for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator and David Epstein. jraimbau (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that some alternative to deletion is merited here. Perhaps merge/redirect to International Mathematical Olympiad#History, as the subject's historic performance there is noteworthy for the event. Alternatively, move to draft iff there is reason to believe that further information can be developed supporting article-worthiness. BD2412 T 21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a redirect / lightly merge outcome, perhaps to the "Gender gap" section of the International Mathematics Olympiad article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with David Eppstein's comments. She seems to be a very good mathematician, perhaps in the future a wikipage will be more suitable. Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I have kept coming back to this AfD since it started. For certain she appears to be a rising star, but that is not the same as a NPROF notable academic. I don't see a redirect to International Mathematics Olympiad working as there already are quite a few women there, but I won't oppose that if someone adds content and does it after the delete. While she does have supporting articles about her achievements to date, I don't think they are enough. She is young, I expect her to have done enough in a few years. As always, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, so it has to be deleted for now. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the anticipation of a possible merge/redirect ATD closure, I invite interested editors to add sourced mentions of Sherry Gong to articles such as those mentioned above, so that we have a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with the comments above that although she has the potential to be notable in the future she is not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a winner of the Alice T. Schafer Prize for Mathematics, Gong meets Criterion 2 of WP:NPROF. Since she only has to meet one criterion, I think this establishes her notability.DesiMoore (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 2 of NPROF very explicitly excludes student awards. She does not meet this criterion. Please read the guidelines you link to before making comments that make it obvious you have not read them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Parker (academic)

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

Non notable academic. The only non broken references are generic or links to university faculty pages, and it appears to be used self promotionally. The subjects high h-index on Google Scholar is the result of her sharing a name with a different researcher. --Spacepine (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I used IAbot to fix a broken reference. Probably notable as co-editor of an academic journal, Labour and Industry (1030-1763), although Wikipedia does not have an article on the journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DrThneed, I thought I’d draw your attention to this article and suggest that an article rescue is as legitimate as creating a new one. Schwede 66 10:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Schwede66. I'll have a go at sorting out that mess of a publication list for a start. First glance at her uni profile suggests to me that she is notable (full professor is not an easy ask in New Zealand, where named chairs are not the norm), and A ranked in PBRF is a significant achievement and not something I think they'd let her say on her page if it wasn't true. DrThneed (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wrt notability I think she is notable in her field. The Big Issues In Employment is in its second edition, and was made broader in scope for the second edition. That, the chief co-editorship, the ILEA Committee membership and the leadership of a large international research collaboration (not mentioned on the page, I will add) all contribute to notability.
Wrt to improving the page: Noting that I have built her a Scholia to contain all the pubs that I've removed from the page. I've divided what's left into type of publication (as I think that is helpful for readers), and selected the publications that ResearchGate/Scopus/Google suggest are most highly cited. I'm not at all wedded to this selection though if other editors have opinions. DrThneed (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable in her field --ProudWatermelon (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to be based primarily on secondary sources and there does not appear to be enough secondary coverage for an article. The only secondary source about her is too brief to create a proper article from. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article certainly needs some help by someone who knows more I do, but I think it can be kept for now. Bduke (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Clearly a consensus to Keep but in AFD discussions, we don't need editors stating that the subject is notable. Our opinions do not matter. We need reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability, especially with a BLP. I see this article is referenced and a source review might help with this evaluation process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1 and 2 are her thesis and university profile. Ref 3 is a study she peer reviewed. Ref 4 appeared to be decent secondary coverage, although not enough for an article; however it is a contributor piece by 'Fusework Media' and I am not able to ascertain if this is a reliable source or not, their website is here: [23]. Ref 5 and 6 are employer profiles. Refs 7 and 8 are work she has done, with the news source being a statement from her in relation to her news, nothing here can be used to support a biography. Ref 9 and 10 are again, just studies/journals she has worked on and have no useful information to extract. 11 is just another employer biography. Ref 12 is an autobiography/self-description. Ref 13 is mention of something she is working on but it is just trivial and simply mentions her name as being involved on it and gives us nothing to write about her. Ref 14 is just a name mention that she won an award.

I do not see these sources as being adequate to satisfy the notability requirements. (WP:WHYN) Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree with Traumnovelle's source review and have not found any better sources out there to meet WP:GNG. No indication of meeting any of WP:NACADEMIC's criteria 1,3,4,6 and 7. 2 requires more notable awards than what she has, 5 requires some special type of professorship, which this person does not seem to have (edited), and 8 requires a more notable journal than what she has. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 09:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She seems to be Notable in her field. There are probably some more references out there. TheSwamphen (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheSwamphen, when you find these references, please bring them to this discussion. It's not enough to say they are out there, sources have to be put in the article or brought here so that they can be evaluated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to h index, I checked her on OpenAlex but that profile also has conflation issues. I've asked them to fix it, and referred them to the Scholia I built for her, and hopefully we might be able to get a more accurate idea of her impact. DrThneed (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as reviewing all of these comments, it's not clear to me whether or not WP:NACADEMIC is met since it sounds like she is a professor (unless I misunderstood DrThneed's comments).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Badami (1786)

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

Y. N. Deodhar is not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, nor WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they are not a historian and are thus an unreliable source. Google scholar wields no results; [24]

Sanish Nandakumar is not a historian, and has a B.S in economics, they are in no way scholarship, especially only having made one book. - No results on google scholar: [25]

This page is poorly created with a spam link of sources in each paragraph.

The other sources provide little but a passing mention. [26] Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Y.N. Deodhar is a M.A. and also a PHD in history which is mentioned in the source used in the article itself. [27] and Another source calls Y. N. Deodhar an “veteran historian” [28]. Also your search results doesn't even mentions the name of "Y. N. Deodhar".

Y. N. Deodhar's book [29] along with these two reliable sources [30] (page no 52-53), [31] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event. GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y.N Deodhar is not cited as having a PHD in history, he's not even on google scholars, which is what you pointed out for me by saying "your search results doesn't mention the name", yes, that's the point, he's not a scholar cited on google scholars.

And I'm sorry but "Venkatesh Rangan" is not a historian, he's an author. [32]

Deodhar, already unreliable as aforementioned, his book provides little insight. The two other sources you cited, are already responded towards, Govind is not a historian. Noorullah (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move on from Google Scholars. I'm not gonna talk about Y. N. Deodhar again because I've already provided an source which literally calls Y. N. Deodhar an “Veteran historian”.

Although Venkatesh Rangan mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian, I've no idea that why does it matter that Venkatesh Rangan is a historian or not because Venkatesh Rangan's book isn't even used anywhere in the article that's totally irrelevant in the AfD (WP:AADP).

Even the Uttarakhand Open University here [33] (page no 239) mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian.

Govind Sakharam Sardesai is a famous historian,[34] there is literally a Wikipedia article on him (Govind Sakharam Sardesai) which also calls him a historian. GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 10:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book written by Govind is outdated per WP:RAJ(1946). Couldn’t find much info about Deodhar other than the links you’ve showed. I guess he’s okay based on what I’m reading, but if that’s the only reliable source that mentions this, then I’m not sure it requires its own separate article.

“Consequent upon the capture of Badami, the strong fort of Bhadur Band capitulated to the Marathas and Haripant proceeded to capture copal, another fort about four miles distant.” There’s only one line that mentions this battle in Deodhars book, and there are no other details other than “it was captured”. This tells me that this event lacks Wikipedia:Notability, which means it doesn’t warrant its own article if it’s based on one line from a book. The other sources don’t seem reliable or fall under WP:RAJ. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

As per explanation given by @GroovyGrinster the article is notable and sources provided are WP:RS giving significant coverage of this Siege even if we don't consider YN Deodhar the other two i.e Sen, Sailendra Nath [35] (page no 52-53) and Sardesai Govind Sakaram [36] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Govind is WP:RAJ. His book was written in 1946. Which makes it outdated. Deodhar makes a small mention of Badami being captured but doesn’t mention a siege or any other details beyond that. As I’ve mentioned before, this event lacks notability, and I already pointed out many of the issues within this article. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Not convinced that this needs its own article. Only reliable source here is from Deodhar and it’s one line about it being captured, with no other extra details or information(see context above). In fact it doesn’t even mention a siege, only that the town was captured. This article lacks Wikipedia:Notability. Govinds book appears to fall under WP:RAJ which makes it an unsuitable addition for any article. The other sources don’t appear to be reliable either per noorullah. One throwaway line/passing mention of this event doesn’t warrant a separate article.

Edit: I’m beginning to think that WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is at play here. How did the user who wrote this article get all this information from one line in Deodhars book? I don’t see how he got the numbers in the info box, nor how he managed to fill an entire article based on a throwaway line. Non of the information in the body for example seem to directly relate to the capture of Badami. There’s no mention of any of that in regards to Deodhars book. So again, there’s barely any information about the CAPTURE(not siege) of Badami in the sources provided. Most of this article employs original research and synth. Even the title is OR, there was no battle. Majority of the information here is falsified. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Capture/Siege of Badami is given significant coverage in these two sources [37] (page no- 53-54), [38] (page no- 178-179). This source mentions this conflict as Siege of Badami in the page number 52 [39].

WP:RAJ doesn't apply to Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book because it only applies to caste related stuff. Hence Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book is a WP:RS, Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay. And All of the sources pass WP:RS, Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable? GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 14:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you’d assume that it only applies to caste related topics but that’s not the case. This has been discussed many times in the past especially on RSN, but typically, all sources that fall under the raj era are not seen as reliable. While the essay written by sitush focuses on caste, most of the same issues mentioned there apply to all raj era historians.

And btw, Govind was already picked apart in RSN for the same reasons I mentioned(WP:RAJ), it’s an outdated source.

“Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reliability of Govind Sakharam Sardesai

“The sources I have seen suggest that it was first published in 1928, which makes it a bit dated, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the source though. “

“I see to recall being informed that prior discussions has found any source published under the Raj was automatically not an RS”

Anything that was written during the raj era is outdated and thus not RS. Sitush can clarify this further for you if you’d like to ask him, as he’s already discussed this detail many times in the past.

“Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay”

It’s an essay written by one of the most prolific writers of Indian historical topics on Wikipedia. Sitush is a content expert. And this is something that has generally been accepted by the community. Raj era sources are typically almost always viable for removal.

Furthermore, the point of the essay was to let the readers know that RAJ era sources are unreliable and outdated. So even if this isn’t a policy(which is irrelevant, this issue was discussed multiple times), WP:RS still exists. We are looking for high quality sources on wikipedia, not outdated work from the raj era. And as I’ve clarified, Govinds work has already been picked apart by RSN.

“Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable”

well I should clarify what I actually meant. look at this source for example https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69209/page/n56/mode/1up

it actually doesn’t seem unreliable based on what I’ve read, so this source is fine but where is the siege of Badami mentioned? I can’t find the quote in the page numbers cited. It seems that this was likely mistakenly added in. So we can’t use this source for information it doesn’t even have. Now as for the final source

https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.7298/mode/1up

There is no page number cited so I can’t even find where it mentions Badami. Furthermore I can’t find any info about the authors credentials, but even if he was reliable, where has he written about the the siege of Badami?

it seems to me that out of all these sources, only one of them mentions anything about Badami. Not that there was a siege mind you. Deodhar makes a passing mention of the town being captured and that’s it. There is no other details. So again, why is this a separate article? After checking all the sources, I realized this article is far more problematic than initially anticipated. The text doesn’t even correspond with what’s written in the sources cited. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment by one of our more experienced editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Someguywhosbored. Full of unverifiable and unreliable claims. Mccapra (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freund Publishing House

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

Article without notoriety or readable encyclopedic context Alon9393 (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and nothing in google news. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-upmanship

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, with its content essentially just being an explanation of its origin that could easily be included in the Wiktionary page. I don't see evidence of the term having standalone notability or passing WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driftwood Cottage

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and insufficient to be presumed notable by WP:NGEO. Suggesting redirect to George W. Reamer#Professional background, which has been done twice by two separate editors but being objected by an editor. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Japan, and California. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me as notable - I performed a quick search for citations and added a couple books which mention the subject. I may also send an email to the Monterey County Historical Society to see what resources they have should this article be kept (and welcome anyone else doing so). DCsansei (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On an aside, was this listed as "Japan" simply because of the garden or is there a further connection? DCsansei (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DCsansei:, by "mention" is it significant coverage? Reference bombing with "mentions" can't compensate for lack of in-depth significant coverage. It's just like if a really large slab of wood is sought after, a whole bunch of wood chips won't substitute it and that's basically what packing together a bunch of sources with a mere mention is attempting to do. I put it in Japan category based on "Architectural style(s) Japanese architecture". Graywalls (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment buildings that would otherwise not be notable often become so because of previous occupants. This of course will immediately trigger the knee-jerk reaction about the essay WP:INHERIT (which has tons of qualifiers and warnings about usage). We have many examples of buildings that became notable because of previous occupants, for example Bron-Yr-Aur, "best known for its association with the English rock band Led Zeppelin". The place and the people who lived there become "associated" ie. the place is famous because of the famous people associated with it. This of course needs to be backed up with sources, which is why INHERIT does not apply, so long as there are sources, there is nothing wrong with a place made famous by famous residents. -- GreenC 14:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George W. Reamer (the builder/architect who is notable) or alternatively to Jean Arthur a notable actress who lived in the house for a while and apparently did a lot of entertaining there. I gave the subject of this AfD a lot of thought before coming here to !vote. The house itself is not notable, the sources describe it in relation to the Reamer or Arthur. I'm sure it is or was a very nice house with a beautiful view, there are a lot of nice homes for wealthy Californians in Carmel – this one is not wiki-notable. It's one of scores California "celebrity homes" (WP:MILL). It is not on the NRHP or even the state registry (neither of which would confer an "instant" notability pass anyways). There are a few claims in the article that I have been unable verify in the sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrities need to live somewhere, so you are right there are probably many in CA. More important is if reliable sources talk about it, is how notability is assessed. -- GreenC 04:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this building is deemed not notable enough for its own article, there's actually a section dedicated to it at Jean Arthur#Driftwood Cottage, which might be a suitable merge or redirect target. Left guide (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate target. Not enough coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to explain situation with redirects. Almost all of the content was removed from George W. Reamer and then it was converted to a Redirect so that is not a viable target article. It should appear as a green link.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Van Bik

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

A (very interesting) article about a Bible translator that unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The two main sources for the article are both WP:SPS and thus prima facie unreliable. One is a collection of remembrances by Van Bik's friend; the other is a self-published (Xulon Press) book by a close friend of Van Bik and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else of use. Don't see a valid redirect target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bible, Christianity, and Myanmar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a bit of a stretch, but per ANYBIO #2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, I'm seeing him referenced briefly in the academic missiological literature as a translator:
"This was followed by David Van Bik and Robert G. Johnson’s translation of the Old Testament, published by United Bible Society through BSI in 1978" in Haokip, D.L. (2020). "Bible Translation in Kuki-Chin of Indo-Myanmar and Bangladesh: A Historical Analysis." In: Behera, M. (eds) Tribal Studies in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9026-6_7

"More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward." in Mang, P. Z. (2023). Chin Diaspora Christianity in the United States. Theology Today, 80(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405736231172682 Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems like a stretch... there are a lot of people who work as Bible translators in the world's many languages, and I don't know that these brief references constitute a "widely recognized contribution." The second reference claims him to be "well known" but the rest of the sourcing doesn't validate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking a cursory look at the article, the source formatting is impressive and I initially believed that the subject was undoubtedly noteworthy. But looking at a sources a bit more reveals how narrow and superficial they are. The article's sources all come from just one book. Looking just at the PDF of the book reveals some serious problems (besides the fact that it is written in, yes, Comic Sans). First of all, the book seems to be self-published, which immediately excludes it as a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. The article also takes some of the exaggerated claims in the book as fact when it should not. Looking at [40] it looks like a WP:BLOG. It goes without saying that the article is sort of a mess, and its sources are no different. The subject fails the widespread, independent secondary sources usually required for notability. GuardianH (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sources all come from just one book is not a correct statement. The majority of the sources do, including quoting separate chapter authors so it seems more diverse than it is, but not all sources come from that book. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--> Correction: yes, I meant to say most sources, rather than all. GuardianH (talk) 00:06, 30 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!} 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: [41], [42] are some of the better sources. He's mentioned quite a few times in Baptist media in Gbooks. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more [43]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, that "On the Road Back to Mandalay" source you link is discussed in my nomination; it's a WP:SPS from a close friend of Van Bik and thus neither reliable nor independent. The Theology Today source is a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION. (This is the only sentence that mentions him: "More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward.") The Wisconsin Baptist source appears to a similarly trivial mention. I still don't think we have WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Life of Anne Frank

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

The film does not appear to be significant by the rules of Wikipedia WP:MOVIE. No detailed coverage in authoritative references, no reviews, no awards.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 09:21, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, History, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Anne Frank Unbound: Media, Imagination, Memory (Indiana University Press, 2012) has coverage about the film. See also: https://www.statesboroherald.com/life/anne-frank-a-history-for-today/ or https://www.deseret.com/2014/4/7/20538955/explore-the-world-of-anne-frank-no-need-to-go-to-holland/ for example. Can also be redirected to List of films about Anne Frank -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 of 3 of the above sources appear sufficiently in-depth to count--the Stateboro Herald being the exception. No objection to an editorial discussion about merging this into List of films about Anne Frank, but I do not believe the sourcing is so bad that a forced merge or redirect from AfD is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cultural depictions of Anne Frank without prejudice, as an improper SPINOFF. While there is no problem with the notability of this film, i.e. the intro is mistaken, the write up is short and entirely missing at the parent level. We need to fix that first before a detailed (!) article will be justified. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cultural depictions of Anne Frank would indeed be a good choice here, since the page itself is a little skimpy as to standalone notability. TH1980 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources already in the article, there are reviews in the Library Journal, the School Library Journal, The Video Librarian and the Library Media Connection. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The ProQuest links above are capsule reviews (a single paragraph, at most). So even if we had 100 of them, there would not be enough content to substantiate a standalone article. I.e., it's missing the "significance" part of the general notability guideline. These are periodicals that review materials indiscriminately to advise librarians on what content to acquire. Everything that these capsule reviews say can be summarized within a short blurb in Cultural depictions of Anne Frank. The other news sources above similarly do not describe the topic in depth. czar 01:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shorter reviews carry more weight if there's a lot of them, and there seems to be a decent amount here. A non-terrible article could be made from this if anyone wished to try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article describes this as a TV film, but it looks like it premiered at a film festival and was (presumably) later screened on TV. Unless there's coverage that explicitly states that this was made for TV and happened to premiere elsewhere first, we should probably treat this under NFILM. Which it looks like everyone is doing, but I wanted to voice that here just in case. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was produced by a TV station, so that's where the TV aspect comes in. I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, it does look like the film is routinely included in various exhibits on Anne Frank and the Holocaust. A copy is also held in the collections of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Anne Frank House has info about it and various ways to watch it on their website, so I'd assume it's also archived there as well. This would point towards it being notable, but there's also not a lot of info so a list page could be good as well. The main thing that makes it stand out is that when it released, it had the only footage that had been shot of Anne. I've cleaned the article up so it looks a bit better and less like a stub. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biafra Referendum

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

Not fit for a separate article from the topic Simon Ekpa. The sources are to a large extent media-repetitions of what he says on social media, in WP-terms way to much WP:ABOUTSELF, and what he says has been turned into WP-voice. Ekpa himself is notable, this project of his is not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Africa, Nigeria, and Finland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find the statement The sources are to a large extent media-repetitions of what he says on social media, in WP-terms way to much WP:ABOUTSELF to be maybe unintentionally wrong. I just assessed most of these sources and did not spot any that I can categorise under WP:ABOUTSELF. I reassessment or overall source analysis might be appropriate if the nominator can. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces Thanks for commenting. Take these sources from the article as example.[44][45][46] Much is repetition of What Ekpa says and announces (and they generally make that clear). This is, in my understanding, ABOUTSELF even if repeated by others. That is pretty much all that is known on this whatever. This [47] may very well be a WP:RS, and it clearly states "Ekpa says X and Y." For some reason "Ekpa says 30 million voted" from that source becomes "30 million voted" in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I put it this way: Ekpa is a fine source that he said 30 million voted (If it should be mentioned on WP somewhere may fall under WP:NPOV). He is not a fine source that 30 million voted, etc. For that, he is "questionable/unduly self-serving" even when the media who repeats it is not SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

The article is an "event" and not an "individual". It only happens that the organizational structure that most updates are coming from Ekpa as the leader of the organization and such, he is the center of reportage. I don't see like WP:ABOUTSELF on the refs. The article not only covers the self-referendum but the billed declaration in Finland from 28 November to 3 December 2024 and it's a long term article to be further stretched and diversified as the Nigerian government made comment and Ekpa invited them to convention where the self-referendum will be conclusive. Interesting days ahead, so therefore I strongly vote keep. The article tends to track the event. References:1., 2., 3. Wår (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment

Keep rather than to be merged to Simon Ekpa or deleted. The Nigerian government has already reacted making the article divergent.

This and that are also independent sources that most content of the article is built. The referendum event is still ongoing event and Inconclusive till December 2024 per sources. So IMO, it's better not to be deleted and then we create another article on this in the next three months. This article is intended to keep record of the event and not on individual Simon Ekpa. Wår (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Wår (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@War Term, please, change this to a comment. You are only meant to !vote once. Best, Reading Beans 15:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Brown (writer)

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

Writer fails WP:NBIO. Article has been tagged for notability since November 2022. GTrang (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References fail to pass WP:SIRS and so article fails to pass WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBIO. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely notable. He has won national book awards in New Zealand and was the Reading Ambassador from 2021–2023. TheSwamphen (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tappin

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the talkpage of this article there are lot of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS ^💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.

The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.

Apart from those, I also see WP:SIGCOV in this, a South China Morning Post article.

I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.

Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.

Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS ^💬 06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/books-special-steve-tappin-tells-us-secret/article/845739 - book review
https://timesnewsgroup.com.au/geelongtimes/living/renowned-authors-to-share-secrets-on-personal-development/ - Book review
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-85788-513-2 - The Secrets of CEOs - Book Review
https://kimtasso.com/book-review-the-awareness-code-the-secrets-to-emotional-empowerment-for-incredible-leadership-by-wayne-linton-and-steve-tappin/ - Book Review (Even tough this is a blog, the original article is from February 2022 edition of Professional Marketing magazine, as stated
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/eduonline/2009-11/23/content_9103252.htm - Book Review, contains quotations, but about half the article is original journalist commentary

In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:

https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/vGunLo5swZ5apoTkVPeZcK/Steve-Tappin--The-author-spills-his-secrets.html - very indepth

Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amadour

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

Fails WP:NSINGER, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Note tag added. Present coverage all PR. Introducing Amadour, EP being released soon. scope_creep^Talk 16:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Visual arts, and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This promotional biography of an emerging artist. The article is trying to cobble together notability-by-association. It doesn't matter who or how many well known artists someone has studied with or interviewed or written about or allegedly curated into shows. The article has been ref-bombed mostly with things he's written about others; student newspaper profiles in the Daily Bruin(UCLA); blog-ish PR advertorials such as Cultbytes a "strategic communications agency" (PR agency "online publication"); and user submitted content websites "submit your music!". Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON; does not meet WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Saint Amadour. I can't remember how this came to be on my watchlist, possibly due to a previous article of this name that got deleted. If so, that does not seem to have been about the same person. There are potentially four claims to notability made here: As a visual artist, as a musician, as a writer and as a curator. None of those are substantiated. The article seems to be trying to inherit notability from minor connections to notable topics. The sources are poor. Many are just their writing, which provides verifiability that they have written, but proves no notability. The music coverage is minimal and one of the sources is a Tumblr blog. The visual/conceptual arts stuff is even thinner, most are just a single passing reference in coverage of group shows, mere entries on a list. There is potentially a fifth claim to notability in that they are described as an art critic here. What we seem to have here is a person who is trying various different things in and around the art world and who has yet to become notable for any one of them. Getting redirected to a (probably fictional) saint might seem like a bit of a kick in the teeth but it is the right thing to do, at least for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. Akbar

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/M. M. Akbar

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

The person is not notable. The reference provided are only of some news, that too 'times of india' mentioning he is involved in a criminal case. His name itself came into the news just because he is accused involved in some criminal illegal activities. clearly fails natability. Also the references are arabnews and http://www.muhammmadnabi.info which is self published Aparamoorthy (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Aparamoorthy (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aparamoorthy (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references, no structure, no good writing. Quick deletion should have been requested. Alon9393 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The editor who submitted this discussion was banned in the sockpuppet case. Spworld2(talk 02:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC
Keep: WP:GNG , (WP:SIGCOV) pass, there are reliable sources available Spworld2 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SosMula

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

Rapper appears to fail WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, as there seem to be no other sources besides self-published ones. GTrang (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything in life has a peer reviewed scientific paper written for it buddy. This is a semi-underground rapper we're talking about here, of course he's not going to have every little thing about his life published on relevant blogs & fact-checked and scrutinized by publications as time goes on. You trying to delete his entire page and his life's work and identity rather than letting the public read about him & create their own conclusions - despite the sources being from himself or from a select few relevant publications, does more damage to the concept of free, unadulterated access to information and is tantamount to censorship, in my opinion.

There is NO NEED to delete this page, but as usual, this site is controlled by power-wielding and weirdo moderators who love deleting and reverting people's hard work, so I'm not holding out on you doing the right thing and leaving this page up. Do as you wish but just remember, in the grand scheme of things, you, me, SosMula and everything else will destruct and wipe away when the heat death eventually occurs so don't overthink & do the most on this encyclopedia site on a Friday night. ✌️ 2001:56A:F471:5500:E54C:3998:1B29:16E3 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Brazil, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to City Morgue where there is already plenty of info about how semi-underground he is. He does not get his own article simply because his City Morgue partner has one. SosMula's solo work and personal life have not qualified for an encyclopedic article due to a lack of reliable music media notice, and his article is dependent on social media posts and self-hyping sites. Note that I did not resort to insulting anyone with a different opinion on the matter, as that is a really ineffective technique for winning a debate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Los Alamitos

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that could be found with a further in-depth search. Conyo14 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator did not do a Google Search. Catfurball (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a WP:BEFORE. Aside from press releases, I couldn't find anything. However, I don't doubt the hospital had other names. Thus, if sigcov is proven, then it can remain. However, the sources there right now are better for a merge between the three articles.

Also, WP:AGF. Conyo14 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Lakewood

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that I wouldn't want to mix with the others. Conyo14 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator did not do a Google Search. Catfurball (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the Lakewood hospital in particular, there doesn't seem to be extensive non-trivial coverage. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bancroft Times

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

Newspaper fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Fountain Valley

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources speak of the majority of hospitals within the network but give no significant coverage of the Fountain Valley location Conyo14 (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator should have did a Google Search before nominating. Catfurball (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Ottawa Students' Union elections

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. The candidates are not even notable for their own article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Education, Lists, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NLIST. Nobody outside the university (and no doubt a sizable portion of the student body) would care in the least. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Anderson (politician)

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

Political candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. Otherwise, there is no evidence of the subject meeting WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Military, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drawer dishwasher

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

The article solely discusses one manufacturers particular model, and has always been this way; it was renamed from "DishDrawer" to "Drawer dishwasher" early on, but its content has never changed.
The focus of the article is ostensibly on dishwashers that open horizontally. That's nowhere near worthy an entire article.
Very few pages link to it, only dishwasher, the article of the product's manufacturer, and a message to a contributor who was then banned for advertising.
Much of the article's talk page discusses its status as an advertisement and its use of a trademark.

MarquisDonders (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MarquisDonders, you nominated this article for deletion on your 3rd edit (you have a total of 5 edits) but judging from your nomination statement, you clearly know how Wikipedia works. What were your previous account(s)? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm computer literate, sure. I've contributed to Wikipedia before anonymously. I read the guidelines for AfDs thoroughly as to not embarrass myself or waste anybody's time.

I understand your concern (presumably) with a relatively new user trying to delete articles and wouldn't fault you for denying the AfD for that reason, but I'd hope my arguments were considered upon their own merit.

MarquisDonders (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Palve

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

Biography of a doctor makes no claim of notability sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. Highest claim is that he ran a 350-bed hospital. Associate professor, no notable academic achievements, a handful of low citation count articles, nothing to satisfy WP:NPROF.

I have done WP:BEFORE searches and have found no significant independent coverage although his name does get a lot of search hits, too many to read all of them. I'd reconsider my nomination if someone turns up some significant coverage (but see next paragraph).

This article was tagged for WP:BIO then WP:PROD but editor @user:Monophile removed the PROD tag and re-added the BIO template after adding links that simply mention or quote the article subject, plus self-penned or promotional articles like this, none of which are significant coverage. If new sources can't bring it up to BIO, it should be deleted. Oblivy (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and India. Oblivy (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. Mostly sources with passing mention and entries and some are primary workplace sources and promotional WP:NEWSORGINDIA and does not show any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as doctor, practitioner, gynecologist and Professor. RangersRus (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources mentioned for notability, so i'm also keeping The Indian Express 2 The Times of India Hindustan Times It has been written about him in big Indian newspaper, since 2020, he is working as a superintendent in the Cama Hospital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monophile (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Today @Monophile the article creator has twice added information to the article without providing a reliable source. Just 24 hours ago they removed an unsourced awards section stating that no notable sources had been found. Today's edits first reinstated the awards section, then just one supposed award, twice been supported by cites that do not mention any award.
The three citations added today just quote Dr. Palve in the context of reporting on the hospital. That's neither significant coverage nor evidence of his notability. Even if the hospital was notable he wouldn't inherit that.
While I am somewhat sympathetic to Monophile's patent desire to see this article kept, WP:HEY requires actually moving the article towards notability. In my opinion, these are low quality cites and dubious claims and shouldn't move the needle at all. Oblivy (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy I have no interest in keeping this article or not but my aim is to bring out the truth, Maybe I was wrong there once I removed the info and re-added it but you removed it again And here was a lot for me to understand, thank you for that. Yes, I must say that as doctor-related information that I have searched about him. This made me think we might have something to look at in the coverage of why this page should be on Wikipedia, some issues in the page have to be corrected and thanks again for letting me know all this.Monophile (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Insurance

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

Non-notable business, promotional. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't find WP:SIGCOV beyond regurgitated press releases. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy, Indiana

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

Another rail point that apparently someone hoped would become a town, but "platted" does not inevitably lead to "constructed", and there's no sign there was ever anything other than station that apparently held the first post office. McCoy is a common name so lots of false hits, exacerbated by a "Lake McCoy" to the northeast, which of late seems to have been the subject of local political problems which paywalls unfortunately block my knowledge of. Mangoe (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dummy (band)

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

Non-notable music group. Fails WP:BAND. Cabrils (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see two album reviews from Pitchfork, two from Paste, one from Stereogum, one from PopMatters, and that's just what's already linked in the article. The group seems like it easily clears WP:BAND. hinnk (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBAND#1 from the contents of the article alone. Geschichte (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I wonder if the nominator simply looked at the article's lack of detail, which currently makes the band look less notable than it is. The band is featured/reviewed in the indie rock press regularly, and the sources already cited can be used for historical info to expand the article beyond its current stub state. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they're notable; article just needs some work Rainsage (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:G5‎. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumuria Technical School and College

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed, no sign of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable school. Xegma(talk) 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, nothing comes up in Google searches that would warrant a standalone article. Procyon117 (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It is created by a banned sock of Mashrafiantu (globally locked). Mehedi Abedin 09:46, 14 September 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.

So Be Steadfast Operations Room

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

Non-notable minor political faction. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Politics, Islam, Middle East, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per this comment from the author. It was mistakenly posted to article space when it was meant for draft space. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janith Kashan

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

Non-notable Sri Lankan businessman. Promotional. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. LinkedIn is not an acceptable source. Dan arndt (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freeland Wood

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

Does not PASS WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources listed are all from a local paper while the other is election results. After an internet search there does not appear to be anymore significant coverage to make him notable. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Police, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 13:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barra Head (band)

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

No credible claim of notability. Too underground to pass NMUSIC, and doesn't pass GNG either. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Europe, Denmark, and Germany. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death Threat (hip hop group)

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

Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC. Badbluebus (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Arts, and Philippines. Badbluebus (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added several sources to the article. I think that they're notable as one of the pioneers of gangsta rap in the Philippines and are also notable as they gave Gloc-9, one of the most influential rappers in the country, his start in the hip hop community. They could use stronger sources, but for now these should be enough to keep it. (P.S. I do not listen to gangsta rap) D-Flo27 (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. The new sources added state that Death Threat was the first (or one of the first) prominent gangsta rap group in the Philippines and that they do have some historical significance for their hip-hop scene, so it passes WP:BAND-7. Badbluebus (talk) 17:12, 13 September 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.

Ulrich Lange

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

Only source is a self-published website anyone can edit. It's certainly possible that this could be a notable topic, although I was unable to locate entries in standard music reference works that cover people like this such as the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians or Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Both foreign language wiki articles are built off of the same source. A reasonable WP:ATD could be redirecting this to Thomaskantor. 4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I found mentions of him in some books:

Bach's Famous Choir, The Saint Thomas School in Leipzig, 1212-1804, devotes about a paragraph to Lange on page 22, where it's mentioned that he composed St Mark Passion which was performed into the 17th century

The Renaissance: From the 1470s to the End of the 16th Century, gives another paragraph to the subject on page 276 Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the second source is only available in snippet view, so it is hard to judge the depth of coverage. The first source largely covers his contributions as Thomaskantor which could easily be used to expand that article. I'm still not convinced a separate article is needed on this person. It's borderline.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a screenshot from that second book. More digging found a german language source from 1920 published by the University of Illinois; Geschichte der deutschen Musik von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des Dreissigjährigen Krieges which on page 411 discusses Lange. Monatschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst mentions him on page 184 as well.

Meister der Renaissancemusik an der Viadrina, Quellenbeiträge zur Geisteskultur des Nordosten Deutschlands vor dem Dreissigjährigen Kriege seems to have some info on Lange (p 78) prior to being Thomaskantor, but is just a snippet. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment same source [48] as used in my discussion for the Otto AfD (right above this one)... I'm more clear about Otto's deletion discussion than this one, I'm not sure if this person is notable or not. Otto has a lack of sourcing.Oaktree b (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Rose

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

All information is contained and better summarized at NCPH Group. Tule-hog (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn, found second source. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Open Heart (book)

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

No reviews except the single one I added to the page and one from a fringe integrated medicine publication which doesn't count. Redirect to 14th Dalai Lama#Publications? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 13 September 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.

Alan Shefsky

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources provided are mainly primary, and the ones that aren't are (1) an obituary, (2) Find a Grave, (3) an article about an exhibition of his letters to a pen pal, (4) a couple of notices about a tribute by one of his students. None of the sources are about him in any significant way. ... discospinster _talk 01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should've submitted for review. There are three newspaper articles concerning his work or renditions of it, two concerning performances of his poems by Northwestern, and another about an exhibit of his work after his death. Though I can easily link others. He seems to be congruent with a notable academic or creative figure. Hypnosef (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added further sources, let me know if more is still required Hypnosef (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hypnosef (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree that none of the sources pertain to him in any significant way.

Source #5 fourteeneastmag.com details "the touring exhibition Poet to Poet: Living Letters, a 13-year correspondence between poet Abe Louise Young and poet Alan Shefsky. Their friendship was preserved in loose leaf papers of written word before Shefsky died from a brain tumor." The source explicitly pertains to his being a poet and his dying of a brain tumor. 2. #6 chicago tribune, details the two's friendship, their long correspondence, and his death from cancer. 3. prizer arts and letters, states that this touring exhibition travelled to Austin, Texas. 4. Sources 8&9 are his poems published in a well-known literary journal. The find a grave and obit were simply to establish birth and death years as they were less readily available than other information. I have also added ten different publications that thank Shefsky by name, though many more exist. These should be sufficient to establish his lasting impact in the academic community. He was a very well-known figure at Northwestern for years.

Hypnosef (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesedi FM

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

Article about radio station with much unsourced content and lack of independant sources or significant coverage. On inspection one of the three sources appears to fail verification as well. It might be possible that the article could be merged into South African Broadcasting Corporation if, as is claimed in the lead, the station is a subsidiary of that organization, but I cannot find confirmation of this fact. Lenny Marks (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and South Africa. Lenny Marks (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NRADIO. National radio station with wide listenership. Coverage in WP:RS indicates notability in terms of WP:GNG. [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]

[58][59] (one of the largest radio listener bases in South Africa) etc etc. I got tired of finding sources (I’m on mobile) but there is a large amount of coverage Park3r (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Atlas of the World

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

I am unable to find any sources that discuss this in depth. The book is an English translation of the 1962 edition of the Cappelens historiske atlas, which I couldn't find any sources for either but I don't know where to look for obscure sources in Norwegian; if that's notable we could make it a page on that. This looks like about a paragraph, could be more, but the preview cuts off and it's all I could find. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know where to look for obscure sources in Norwegian, and was able to find the following:

Ten reviews in newspapers or periodicals on the 1962 edition

Two reviews in newspapers or periodicals on the 1983 edition

Therefore I am leaning keep, though none of these sources mention a subsequent English edition. Geschichte (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte Could you add some of these sources to the article? They don't have to have links or content just maybe put them in further reading so we know they exist and we don't end up here again in a year. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedpost (book)

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

One solid review already linked in the page, nothing else to fulfill NBOOK. Redirect to Shobhaa De? This on Google Books says something about it but I can't figure out if it's useful since the preview cuts off. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shobha De: Per nomination, this does not meet WP:NBOOK all by itself. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article written as an essay, test mode or a kind of draft that is not ready to be published should be moved to the testing area or it could be deleted and written again. I don't know much about books but I do know about the minimal relevance that is needs to exist here on Wikipedia. --Alon9393 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can anyone manage to look at what the Google Books link is for? It looks like sigcov but I really can't tell. :/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]