Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 22	August 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Namumula

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. HueMan1 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

I propose this article for deletion because there are many, many, many "sources" but which are often profiles and biographies sometimes written by the artist himself and anonymous users, the sourcing is horrible and it is difficult to find your way around, if the article is eligible it is absolutely necessary to rework the sourcing, I tried to improve it, but... SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a lot of these "sources" come from databases like AllMusic, are there any press articles or better quality elements? SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maki-Concert

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT. HueMan1 (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Littleton, Colorado

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

Completely unreferenced list of entirely redlinked or unlinked people. As always, the core purpose of a Wikipedia list is to help readers find Wikipedia articles, so a list of mayors has to have at least some blue links in it -- it appears from the edit history that a couple of the most recent mayors had articles in the past, but they've all been deleted so that this is now entirely a list of unlinked names. As well, lists still have to be properly referenced just the same as any other article, but this features no referencing at all.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of the subject area, and better access to sources that would verify the mayors' names and terms, is willing to tackle cleaning it up, but it can't be retained as an unreferenced list with no bluelinks in it. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Colorado. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's a similar Afd. I don't believe their keep arguments are too strong. Its also kind of crazy to realize that this article is 21 years old. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think merging to Littleton, Colorado#Government could remove an unnecessary fork and keep the information available. I found a reference for the list as well and I didn't see any mention of any of the mayors being elected to the state legislature in their biographies I found. (In other words, none of the redlinks appear to meet WP:NPOL) TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A merge is fine assuming the list does not make the main page about the city too long. A stand-alone page is fine too. WP:NLIST does not say that the list must contain notable (blue-linked) entries. What is required is that the subject itself is notable and that the entries are not indiscriminate. That said, there does need to be sourcing. But I think this source verifies the information. --Enos733 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farm Credit Bank of Texas

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Haven't managed to find a single independent piece offering significant coverage. There are a few trivial namedrops here and there and that's about it. C F A 💬 19:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, and Texas. C F A 💬 19:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not an ordinary bank, but one of five regional quasi-governmental institutions that lend to agribusinesses. It needs work, but not deletion. I would not oppose a merger with an appropriate article. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Farm Credit System. The sources in this article (and indeed most of its text) are actually about the broader system. I don't see any reason to do a merge of this content before redirecting, since it's mostly context that is provided by that parent article anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Farm Credit System per WP:BRANCH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Basketball

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

Disputed draftification, whcih leaves AfD as the route for articles with insufficient referencing and failing WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Africa, and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no opposition to draftify, but my BEFORE doesn't show any promise this passes NCORP as I did't find any sources about the organization that satisfied all three of independent, reliable and SIGCOV. Though, happy to be proven wrong by a demonstration of WP:THREE, as always. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as it is mentioned in multiple sources. As an academy it has produced some upcoming notable players. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the worthy subject matter . Article has abundant sources and produces up and coming athletes. GraceAndFavor improving on this by citing sources. GraceAndFavor (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*)

~~Keep~~ GraceAndFavor working on Article and good sources for this relevant note worthy sports program ~~~~

GraceAndFavor (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC) (you can only cast one "vote" in an AFD so I have struck your duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I wouldn't call 2 sources "abundant sources" and the purpose of this group doesn't help establish its notability. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete First two sources are namedrops, the last two are not independent, and while the third source does cover the academy somewhat with only one usable source WP:NORG is not met here. Let'srun (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Varre

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR (with only one significant role in a notable film). The available sources are all tabloid coverage under WP:SBST and/or of questionable reliability under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Repeatedly recreated by UPE/COI editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have more than one significant role in notable productions. Significant does not mean "lead" role only. Did you have his role in Evvarikee Cheppoddu in mind? His role in Badrinath could be considered significant too; and at least a couple of other roles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NACTOR. Just go to Baahubali 2: The Conclusion and ctrl-f his character Sethupathi. He has played negative roles (in films such as Badrinath) which may have garnered more recognition than Evvarikee Cheppoddu.[1] DareshMohan (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per DareshMohan. Multiple significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. The subject's whole career is from unreliable source 123Telugu.com. If you take out everything from the career that is solely from unreliable source, nothing is left. 2 other unreliable sources are Indiaglitz and idlebrain. TimesofIndia source WP:NEWSORGINDIA is also just an interview for WP:PROMO of upcoming film. Fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject's career to consider a standalone notable page but also opting for draftify if the page can be improved with significant coverage with reliable secondary independent sources. Page also fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Page was created by Mr Nerd 96, who is blocked for "Undisclosed paid editing in violation of the WMF Terms of Use, ignored COI disclosure requests and continued editing NSM Public School, Vijayawada, in addition to potentially UPE-edits at Bandi Saroj Kumar, Rakesh Varre." RangersRus (talk) 12:32, 12 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!} 21:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am also okay with a redirect since a lot of sources point to Evvarikee Cheppoddu, if all sources are WP:PROMO. All information on the page that is considered non-neutral should be made neutral. DareshMohan (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again, hopefully to find a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Zuilhof

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

Article does not pass WP:BLP for multiple reasons: almost all of it seems to be unverifiable original research, it contains no reliable secondary sources, is written in a semi-promotional tone, and the quasi-entirety of its content comes from one single user (including article creation and portrait photo, described as their "own work", strongly hinting at an undisclosed conflict of interest. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. That alone satisfies WP:NPROF. If the page is too promotional then it needs editing, but the subject is clearly notable. If there's a COI by its author, that need to be clarified. Qflib (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently for FRSC one needs only five years of professional experience and a credit card [2]. That doesn't sound like the level of highly selective and honorary membership that WP:PROF#C3 is intended for. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea, thanks for the correction. I withdraw my recommendation. Qflib (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do have a more selective list of honorary fellows [3] but Zuilhof is not listed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct indeed, getting the FRSC badge is more of a networking opportunity that provides a self-aggrandizing title than any kind of recognition of achievement, thank you @David Eppstein for pointing that out, and @Qflib for adjusting the recommendation. I should have mentioned the guidelines at WP:NPROF but did not want my nomination statement to be too long ; in hindsight had I done that my case may have been more solid. Essentially I do not think the subject passes any of the criteria: he is simply a relatively successful late-career academic with reasonable contributions to his field, but in my opinion passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPROF, and that is why I am confident that the page should simply be deleted. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 11:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. (Note: the version I am looking at has been cleaned from the original one nominated.) He has no single massively cited paper, but his citation record is strong. I always want to see some prizes to indicate that others consider a Prof notable. The click prize does this slightly, but it does not appear to be that major from the source. His editorial board is WP:MILL, and the RSC award has been (correctly) removed. However, I don't think we can ignore an h-factor of 75 where he seems to be maintaining a respectable number of cites/year with 16 published in 2024 so far, albeit not all in the highest impact factor journals. Keep, but it has to be weak because there is not that much more than his pubs to pass notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYWC-AM

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

Previously deleted and salted as DYWC * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The sources I was able to verify were relatively poor, and the creator of this article looks like a spam account. Badbluebus (talk) 17:34, 16 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!} 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this as well. HueMan1 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taylor Bullock

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

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC or other notability criteria. Scopus search shows 20 documents with an H-factor of 4. Klbrain (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Mexico, Ohio, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His Google Scholar profile is no better. No pass of WP:PROF#C1 and (with such a junior position) no other WP:PROF criterion is evident or likely. There are no in-depth reliable independent sources so WP:GNG is also out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M M Gobindapur High School

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

Reviewed during New Page patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. I'm normally very lenient on schools but this one just fell too short. Very small secondary school. Has no real sources (just 3 database and internal admin type listings) much less any GNG sources. As a result of no real sources, just has brief "it exists" type content. Previously tagged by others for wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sagardari Union, the encompassing geographic unit, where it could be mentioned in the education section. I agree that the school is not notable. Sohopathi.com and honoursadmission.com have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking. They are indiscriminate, they attempt to be databases of all schools (or all that teach certain grades) in the country, so they do not help establish notability. They also are not independent of the school because they simply scrape and repackage government databases of school-supplied info, such as the Secondary and Higher Education Division and the Bangladesh Bureau of Educational Information and Statistics. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fields of Mistria

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}}.

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

I'll fully admit this is on the edge, but the main sources used here, TechRaptor and Noisy Pixel are essentially unreliable. The game only got 2 major reviews from RS, one from PCGamer and the other from The Escapist, and while it got numerous pieces of coverage from PCGamer, that counts as a single source as far as GNG is concerned. The other mentions the game had, such as in Kotaku, are just trivial coverage of announcements and don't include actual reviews of the game, leaving the amount of significant coverage below the bar for a typical game article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(article creator) Keep or draftify I've removed Noisy Pixel from the article, considering that most other sources mention same things as them, and added recent RS. TechRaptor, on the other hand, is not listed as an unreliable source, unlike Noisy Pixel. The game has actually been reviewed beyond PCGamer and The Escapist, though they might not be as detailed as those two sources. The amount of coverage it received though, especially for an indie early access game from an unknown studio, is enough to meet WP:GNG standards. If editors think the opposite, I feel like the article should then at least be draftified because it will probably continue getting coverage from RS in the coming period (the game was just released in early access last week), after which the article will certainly be ready for mainspace, if it is not ready now. I do not think that straight up deleting the article will be helpful, considering that it will certainly then be re-created at some point in the future. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the 4 discussions on the site, it was struck out as Unreliable. I'm actually not sure why it's listed as inconclusive. But if people decide otherwise here, I'll gladly withdraw the AfD.

The game is early access, so you could be right about the WP:TOOSOON. I still think that merits deletion rather than draftification. This is a case where the page should be saved locally until such time it can be rewritten. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree, but I'd like to hear opinions from other editors. The game has received better or same coverage as other games listed at Upcoming video games scheduled for 2025. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: As someone who planned to create this article, this game is likely to be notable within the next six months (when drafts get deleted after 6 months of no activity) because the game was just released into early access this month. Currently, Metacritic shows just two reviews, both of which are unreliable. Plus two sources is just under what makes a topic notable and its only been a week since launch (I normally say at least three reliable sources). You can see why I didn't publish it rn but planned to work on it by end of month. The article is much larger than expected also. I have a draft sitting in my userspace about this game JuniperChill (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ATD to Draftify: It is Too Soon to "Keep". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Would not be against draftifying (ATD) if consensus agrees there might be more than bare notability of a Stardew Valley knock-off in the near future. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst Draftify. Disclaimer that I came here after the creator asked for feedback on the quality of the article in the Wikipedia VG project discord. That said, I find the assertion "TechRaptor is unreliable" to be a bit of bunk as it's recognized as inconclusive by WP:VG/S and just had a recent discussion to that end. There are also several other sources independently discussing the subject's early access release such as Siliconera and Destructoid. Probably one concern is WP:SUSTAINED as many of the sources are in a small window of time, but there's at least enough reaction to indicate a degree of notability from it's Early Access release. The absolute worse case is if it fizzles beyond this it can be revisited later.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really an argument why "inconclusive" should be counted as reliable. That means "possibly unreliable" and we should only use sources that are confirmed to have full reliability. There are plenty of games with numerous reliable source articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx I'm not even going to entertain that argument, you've been with the project long enough to know that's not how that works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Not voting keep because I haven't looked into the sources fully. I don't think there's any reasonable grounds for deletion here - the game has only just released to early access and we already have enough coverage to write a 1000+-word article on it. If it doesn't yet belong in mainspace, the appropriate action is to draftify it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taufik Rosman

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

This is a BLP1E. Also, Wikimedian of the Year is not a major award recognized by the public. I'd say something like an Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor would be and WotY isn't in the same category at all. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Sack of Isfahan and Ray

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

Another typical non-notable article. The event is more or less covered in a mere sentence in this article. The event already appears in the much better written and sourced Hephthalite–Gokturk raids of 614–616. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romhacking.net

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

A defunct website recently "in the news". Anecdotal evidence here doesn't appear to pass WP:NWEB. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I initially tried to redirect it due to only having extremely recent sources, but sources were added from 2019 and 2023 that shows it appears to pass SUSTAINED by having been mentioned repeatedly in the press. It was created in poor shape, but WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems are not an adequate deletion rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But which of these are significant coverage? The "Time Extension" article appears to be only one covering the site specifically. Mentions of the site hosting ROM hacks isn't enough for an article, maybe for some kind of list at best. I think a redirect or merge to ROM hacking or similar would make more sense.

Edit: I didn't give the Kotaku article much thought, which says "Within the community of people who like to hack old video games, it’s a big deal." IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After considering it further, I am changing my !vote to Merge to Rom hack. There still isn't enough SIGCOV to actually detail the site's history, as most of the coverage is mentioning it in the context of its closure. Having coverage to allow for the creation of a fleshed out article is one of the criteria for GNG, and this ain't it - even the creator acknowledges that, or they'd have added it in. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiverse worlds (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

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

Recently moved from draftspace which is primarily a WP:CONTENTFORK of WP:FANCRUFT contents covered at the more dedicated Multiverse (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article. Majority of the contents are unsourced or poorly sourced, and much of the universe "Earth" designations are vacant. This does not warrant an article nor does a separate list meet notability in its own right. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Television, and Entertainment. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this AfD should probably be withdrawn given that the article in question has been shifted back to draft space. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Good point. I'll withdraw this, though I will note this should not be moved back to the mainspace unless there is consensus to do so. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. Reason: Relevant taskforce. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Entirely redundant content fork off the current Multiverse article that offers no new information for readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Comment: The original creator User:MarioProtIV moved it back to draftspace after this AfD was initiated. Pinging here for comment. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep I did not give (a)nnihilation97 permission to move this to main space as it is far from finished. Secondly, I fail to see how this is FANCRUFT, giving it explicitly is within the realm of MCU canon. If you’re so bold on deleting it, then you should delete List of DC Multiverse worlds since it has much of the same content that you’re claiming is non-notable. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that much of this list is repeated of the main MCU multiverse article and universe names are not confirmed. It is far too early for this list. I have no problems with a general DC list (and don't edit those articles), my rationale is based on this article's quality. If you want the contents preserved, I would suggest retainning it in your sandbox, especially if you don't want others working on it and to prevent something like this from happening again. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but given the extent of the universes we’ve explored so far in the MCU and confirmed side-realities, it would not hurt to have a general list of all the ones the MCU has shown. We have an extensive character list over several pages that are short blurbs about the characters. Readers should be aware of what other realities the MCU has shown aside from the prominent ones. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are adequately covered at Multiverse (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Notable realities for the time being. That article has not become long enough to the point where a split is warranted, nor are the universes themselves that more notable than the MCU multiverse itself. Maybe wait until after Secret Wars to see how this all develops in terms of the multiverse. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the move of this article to Draft space which was out-of-order and improper once this AFD was started. You can make an argument for Draftification. Trailblazer101, do you still want to withdraw your nomination or let this AFD continue? If it is closed due to a nominator's withdrawal, it would close as a Speedy Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, I would still push for deletion. If anyone wants content from this, they can repurpose it in their sandbox. I just don't see the need for this anytime soon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This was never meant to be published until I felt it was ready so deleting the page because someone decided to move it without notifying me or anyone else it is a bit unfair, especially since the revision history will be deleted. This should be moved back to my userspace as it initially originated from, if that’s okay. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital humanitarian responses

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

"Digital humanitarian responses" is not a distinct concept discussed in reliable sources. It appears as a text string along with other words used to describe online and mobile transmission of foreign aid and relief funds. (The sources in this article with one or two exceptions do not even refer to the text string.) This WP:NOESSAY is thus WP:SYNTH and violates WP:NOR, failing the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG. I would normally try to salvage something from this, but it's almost certainly LLM-generated (GPTZero: 91% chance), and given the lack of conceptual integrity and low likelihood users would search for this (its pageview count is very low), I recommend outright deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Technology. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find several hits on the title phrase, but most are either blogs or meeting abstracts incorporating the phrase (and actually talking about different vaguely-related things). Article is heavy on WP:SYNTH, without which it's hard to see a cohesive topic. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Superleague Formula records

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

Purely WP:OR stats of a virtually forgotten series that is of little value other than to the most ardent fans (WP:FANCRUFT). A quick search per WP:BEFORE offers nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. WP:RS in this list is virtually non-existent in addition to a straight fail to WP:NLIST. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 100% essential article, serving as a summary of the racing series - similar articles exist for F1, IndyCar, Formula E etc - Superleague Formula dissolving after 4 years does not make this article any less valid. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of WP:ILIKEIT. Question for you: is there such stats by WP:RS? The difference between those you mentioned (except Formula E) is that records exists by reliable third party sources. Superleague was a failure from day one. Now its gone and quitely forgotten, nobody cares like A1GP. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomás Keenan

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

Biography of an Italian field hockey player fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV. Disputed PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Draper and Torey Adamcik

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

From 6 June 2014 to 24 June 2024, this article was a redirect to Murder of Cassie Jo Stoddart. Since then, it's had a huge blast of edits, creating this article. The murderers themselves are notable only for this event. The redirect was appropriate. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: theres tons of information about these two that wouldnt fit in the Murder of Cassie Jo Stoddart Also there are other killers only notable for one event that have their own articles. Interaham (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absent their notoriety for the crime, other information on the perpetrators isn't meaningful. Just because there's a lot of information doesn't make them notable separately from the crime. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. They were clearly not notable enough between 2011 - when the article on the murder of Cassie Jo Stoddart was first created, and now, to warrant an article about them. I haven't read the article in question, is there some very notable new information regarding the crime that would warrant this separate article for the perps? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

their Early Life and Prior Criminal History for example Interaham (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their early life and prior criminal history can be summarized in the Murder of Cassie Jo Stoddart article. Neither of those themselves establish new information that would make them notable now. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what about the many interviews draper gave which provide with incite, plus the fact that their case went viral back in 2006 because they documented the whole thing Interaham (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't believe those are valid reasons to establish notability for an article separate from the Murder itself. The article on the murder isn't overly long, information related to the crime can be folded into it, because the crime is what was notable. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles states that a perpetrator of a crime may be notable for their own article if they got enough media coverage which is the case for these two as they got National Coverage Interaham (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per reasons already tendered. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Idaho. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's an interview with the pair that came out March 2023, but there's been nothing about them before or since, outside of the crime. I don't see them as being notable outside of the crime and any information about them is covered there. Most of the sourcing used in the article now is simply them appealing their conviction, which is still related to the incident. I don't see the need for a break-out article. These aren't famous criminals, just two guys that did a bad thing and went to jail. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they were interviewed in 2014

And again in 2023 and more recently in 2024

They were featured in many True Crime shows, plus there are many killers and criminals only notable for one event that have their own articles for example Nikolas Cruz and Leopold and Loeb. Interaham (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Canada railway shutdown

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

Lockout lasted less than a day, with arbitration occurring right now. This information could be covered in a different article. Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, and Canada. Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article can and should cover the entire crisis, including the arbitration. It is a massive event and coverage abounds despite the lockout lasting less than a day.--User:Namiba 19:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canada is a huge country and depends on the rail system for its supply chains. The arbitration process is important, as is the fact that the federal government has intervened in a labour dispute between private companies and their employees. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, there have been some developments, with a formal strike notice from the Teamsters with respect to CN, and statements by labour experts in the media that the federal government cannot order binding arbitration; it can refer the issue to the labour board, which then must determine if the situation warrants binding arbitration. i will update the article on this point. There's also the point that there is a political aspect: three premiers have spoken out on the issue, worried about the economic impact of the shutdown. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest news is that service has not resumed on CPKC; union is considering a constitutional challenge to the minister's direction for binding arbitration; the NDP, which has supported the Liberal minority government, has harshly criticised the referral for binding arbitration. This isn't over. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but refocus around the broader dispute. C F A 💬 20:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the dispute has not ended - Teamsters just issued a 72 hour strike notice to CPKC, and they are still picketing CN. Article just needs to be expanded with more details on this. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 21:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided updates on these points. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a news story with no secondary sourcing. Being in the news does not make something notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — There is no impact of this event. However, I would not be opposed to restructuring the article to cover the labor dispute in general. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe Yes there is, the trains are still shutdown, with no freight moving. This is still notable. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 02:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete/merge: concur with the alien. the broader labor dispute is probably notable, but this doesn't need its own article. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification, please: what "broader labour dispute" article are you referring to, that you are proposing this article be merged with? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —Too soon, not news. Qwirkle (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the guideline is just the opposite. See : WP:RAPID, under the heading “Don’t Rush to Delete Articles”:
Articles about breaking news events are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn’t in Wiki NewSpeak. It was simple English. This is premature, and it is journalism, not history. Nuke it til it glows. Qwirkle (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. (Superleague Formula team)

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

Same case to past nominations - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada SailGP Team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acceleration Team China

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, like the XFL. Like the ill-fated American football league, the teams collapsed with it. Unlike that league, it lived without fanfare and died without an embarrassing death, witnessed by nobody but a Wikiproject taskforce that existed for creating articles like this. However, the teams operating it maybe is notable.

Going straight onto the nomination, this amongst all articles about the other teams in this series serves only to appeal to the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago, so is anybody going to care about its existence? Checking on the internet per WP:BEFORE turns out mainly articles about the short-lived series beside one article by a hobbyist website run by students (Merseysportlive), this offers nothing new as its content is plagiarised from this page. Britsonpole is another hobbyist site - this look as if it is regurgitated from press releases.

Speaking of the WP:RS in this article; sources are announcements of driver signings, a WP:ROUTINE occurrence in Autosport in addition to race reports, another routine occurrences. The one by BBC Sport is another announcement of a team entering the series. Overall, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance (WP:SIGCOV) are pretty thin.

Overall, this like all the teams linked to football teams, may pass WP:GNG in 2008 when notability guidelines was lax, but will it in 2024? SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Motorsport, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Ojala

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

Nominated for the following reason: Fails WP:GNG. The article currently contains no reliable, secondary sources. The first 2 articles are sports aggregate result websites that alone do not establish notability. The third article is a bio on a team website that no longer links to the athletes page. An independent google search as required for AfD returned no significant non-trivial coverage of the athlete. Wibbit23 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't look notable from the article. If you consult Special/Whatlinkshere you will find a 14th place at the 2017 World Championships and a 13th place at the 2022 World Championships. The 13th best in the entire world... looks much more notable now. And look, there is lots of significant coverage about his upbringing, personal life etc. [4] [5], various competitions [6] [7]+[8] and finally an article from this July about him retiring. [9]. These are from the two first pages of Google hits when I searched within Svenska YLE (since I know Swedish) and for his name in conjunction with his home town (since articles that write about someone's place of origin tend to showcase more knowledge about the person). A pretty clear keep Geschichte (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Low-level competitor with almost zero coverage. [10] is a brief mention, then nothing else comes up. This isn't a famous athlete, just an athlete in a group of many others. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wavey

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

Main artists do not have their own Wikipedia article. No significant chart positions. Fails WP:NSONG. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 18:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Wibbit23 (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it charted #1 on Dance Club Songs there likely is enough coverage to meet NSONG, but I can't find much. There's this and a few listicle entries but not much else. C F A 💬 21:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luigi video games

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

This article seems to be highly OR in terms of what is considered a "Luigi video game." A quick BEFORE yields little to no results for an overarching series bar Luigi's Mansion, which seems to be notable as a separate series. However, every other entry just happens to be every time Luigi starred in a game, with no clear reasoning as to if it's meant to count as a "series" or not. (As no source I can find links together a Game & Watch Luigi game and Mario is Missing! to any of Luigi's later solo games, for example) The Luigi's Mansion series seems notable, but every other entry this list doesn't seem to have the citations needed to really verify that they're part of a series of video games, nor do they verify that these games are even notable as a group beyond starring Luigi in them. The current article feels very unneeded, given there's nothing claiming notability for this being a notable sub-category of games, and a grouping of video games that just so happen to star a notable character just doesn't hold water. Even if the article were to be focused on Luigi's Mansion, it would need a complete TNT. This list feels better off deleted, with a Luigi's Mansion series article being made if editors find that the subject can be made into a separate article, but the concept of "Luigi video games" just doesn't seem to hold weight as either a series or as a notable sub-collection of videogames. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could definitely see this as a useful article. The reader (mainly gamers) would be able to tell which games are more focused on Luigi even if there is no leading "Luigi" title for game (ex. Mario Is Missing!). However I do think it should have been created after there were more than 15 installments, rather than 9. I feel like it leans more on the Luigi's Mansion series for notability. Sackkid (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are definitely a lot of my problems with the current list. There's very few entries, most are unrelated to each other bar a shared protagonist, and it leans heavily on the Luigi's Mansion series as it's the only really notable "series" there. If people want to see what games Luigi featured in, his navbox is still there (Even if that also needs work) or, at worst, this article could be lightly merged into Luigi's article, so that way those interested in seeing Luigi's starring games can find them there. (Not my preferred outcome, but definitely an idea if people feel it worthwhile). Outside of the Luigi connection, these games don't really hold much water as a group, and a guy starring in a set of games does not make that subcategory of games separately notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we really claiming the Luigi games aren't a spinoff? Seriously? Nintendo even did a Year of Luigi promo which is currently a Good Article. While it's not as large a sub-series as Mario, trying to deny it exists boggles the mind and we certainly aren't hard-up for hard drive space that would necessitate folding it into the Mario series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally cannot find sources indicating it exists under one banner, and outside of Luigi's Mansion, the only separate game series I can find relating to Luigi is Mario & Luigi, which is a separate series and not entirely focused on Luigi. As it currently stands, the list is just a miscellaneous assortment of games starring Luigi with no verification of the series' own separate notability. Compare this to something like Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games, which have multiple successful series that can be verified even with a quick Google search. You are right in saying that these games are spin-offs, but they aren't really tied together in a way that shows inherent notability bar happening to be associated with Luigi.

As a note, Year of Luigi doesn't really focus on the Luigi games as one series, with the games released under that year being variations of pre-existing games. Dr. Luigi is a spin-off of the Dr. Mario series, Mario & Luigi: Dream Team is a single entry of the wider Mario & Luigi series, and the various Luigi "remixes" are just variations of pre-existing games. There was a focus on games having Luigi in a starring role, but trying to say that immediately makes a random collection of games notable is like saying Shadow the Hedgehog has his own series because he's had big roles in several games and had a whole year dedicated to him as well. Luigi's Mansion is really the only one here that can be uniquely verified as part of a wider, notable branch of games. A list like this is the equivalent of attempting to make a "List of Pikachu games" and just lining it up with Pikachu's assortment of unrelated spin-off games that aren't branched under one umbrella (Games, for example, like Hey You, Pikachu! and Detective Pikachu (video game) focus on the character, but are not part of an umbrella franchise starring the character like characters like Yoshi and Wario are).

My problem with this list is not a matter of "trying to deny the Luigi games are spin-offs" or some bizarre thing like that, but rather that this list doesn't verify how the games featuring him are individually notable of the original Mario franchise, nor does it contain sourcing verifying the Luigi games as one major umbrella property like other notable Mario characters happen to have. This list is simply unverifiable. If you or anyone else can dig up sources noting these games are part of one whole umbrella, with notability and description inherently separate from the Year of Luigi or the Luigi character, then I'd be happy to withdraw since I just happened to miss stuff in my search. But right now as it stands, the list just lacks the things it needs to really meet guidelines and justify a split off any other article. I do hope this clears up my viewpoint a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep but I see where the nom is coming from. Luigi is too interlinked with Mario (being his sidequick) to really rise to stand-alone Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games status, but he's also further along than Princess Peach and Toad (Mario) (who both have several games named after them but no sub-franchise article). It seems Nintendo keeps pushing for a new stand-alone franchise, even if it's currently mostly Mansion. Since Mansion doesn't have an overarching series article yet (but could have) and instead hatnote-links to this list, I'd rather keep this list and see where Nintendo takes it, until we can decide how to best present the information. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, how List of Wario video games is featured and how it is different from Wario (series) doesn't make sense to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is... bizarre. I didn't even know there were separate articles for both of these until now. There's a lot of content overlap there that should probably be merged, but that would require a heavy amount of editing and decision making to accomplish that's not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I can see an argument for there not really being a Luigi series, maybe there's an argument to be made about repurposing it into a Luigi's Mansion series article instead, which is more of a concrete, actual series? Just a thought, currently undecided on what to do personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do agree that something like this might have potential (specifically the potential for a Luigi's Mansion series page), but I'm also agreeing with Pokelego's stance on how to handle this. It's hard to tell what exactly a "Luigi video game" is, and this list has nothing worth saving even in the event a Luigi's Mansion series article, or something on the lines of that, is created. λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Luigi's game appearance are covered on Luigi#Appearances and I think the article is below WP standards as is. But considering the Mario franchise has similar lists like List of video games featuring Mario, I don't think the scope of this AfD can resolve anything. IgelRM (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That list very much feels like it fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE given it's covering every time a video game happens to feature Mario, one of the most iconic characters of all time who is so frequently referenced and parodied that a list like this seems very useless in terms of use. It feels like it'd be better off rebranded to being a list of Mario franchise videogames, but that feels like a separate discussion that would take place outside of the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Agreed with the nom that there isn't a "Luigi series" and that this list presents original research issues in implying such a series exists apart from appearances of the character. The alternative to deletion is to redirect to the existing section on Luigi appearances, which is what a reader looking for this topic would be least astonished to arrive. czar 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It falls under WP:COMMONSENSE given that all the games both have Luigi in the title and star him as a main character. Original research is going out and confirming something that isn't obvious. We shouldn't be spending time debating whether grass is green or 1+1=2. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these can't be verified as unified group, then it's just a collection of every game Luigi's happened to star in with no other real connecting thread. Yes, we can verify these games happen to star Luigi, but that's not really the point of this. The point is that this list simply is not verifiable as defining what a "Luigi video game" is, nor is it able to show why this subset of games is notable beyond happening to focus on Luigi. The collection of games themselves are not unified by a connecting thread like other Mario series articles, such as Yoshi or Wario, and no sources verify if they can be. This list simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If there is no "Luigi series" and this is a list of games featuring Luigi, then we should view it as a summary style split from Luigi#Appearances. I don't think the sourcing warrants the split. czar 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source has Miyamoto referring to the Year of Luigi titles as "Luigi games", which appears to show that their creator views them as a single group even outside the Luigi's Mansion series. That's confirmation enough for me, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's no coverage on Luigi games as a group. Most sources that tie to them are tied to Year of Luigi and don't show the games as being independently notable outside of that event, and the fact the games exist does not immediately warrant an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is definitely notable even though it does lean on the Mansion series. But overall, it is definitely helpful to readers including myself. Sackkid (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE,WP:ITSHELPFUL, and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind, I already made a separate comment about why it should be kept. Sackkid (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing another comment of yours that doesn't violates least one of the three things I cited above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split out Luigi's Mansion series, then delete - it seems to be the only notable series involved here. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Czar and NegativeMP1; the Year of Luigi does not demonstrate the existence of a continuous, overarching group of "Luigi games". I find it difficult to believe that Luigi's Hammer Toss and New Super Luigi U are part of the same "series" or are even discussed in any significant capacity as part of the same well-defined group. ― novov (t c) 06:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An alternative to deletion is to really focus on Luigi's Mansion only because that is really a franchise. OceanHok (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lone lead character. It doesn't claim to be a "series", so I'm not sure why the nom thinks that should be relevant. There are plenty of articles that list related media together without them being an actual "series". Not all of the games in List of video games featuring Batman are a part of one series, for instance.128.151.71.8 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bring up the series argument to show how there is no real explicit reason why this list is notable. A list that consists of games that happen to have Luigi as the protagonist is an indiscriminate collection of information unless sources touch on it. The sources do not support separate notability, neither as a series of games, nor as a collection of games. Also, see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have other articles on similar subjects does not mean this list is suddenly exempt from the standards of notability, as there are plenty of similar lists that don't meet standards running around. (I will note the Batman one is pretty low quality- like, it's using GameFAQs as a source, for example. I do feel there's potential grounds to improve that list given Batman itself is a franchise, and Batman has several notable game series, but I wouldn't know where to begin on that. Luigi's list doesn't have much of a hope of improvement bar Luigi's Mansion, which can just be split off from the rest should other editors decide that's beneficial for readers, per the above arguments on the list's contents.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "List of video games featuring X" is different from a "List of X video games". IgelRM (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Agree that it is literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lead character. Jennysue61884 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Was leaning keep until I saw that that exists. At this time, I agree with Czar's points made earlier about constituting original research. Maybe a Luigi's Mansion article could be created. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do think this passes WP:NLIST and is broadly talked about as a grouping in enough sources to let it be a standalone article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? The article has none discussing them as a group and none have been shown in this AfD nor found in any BEFOREs that would verify notability as a group. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though some of it is just about Luigi in general, this article from Nintendo Life does speak about the Luigi games as a group in the "going solo" section. On a side note, responding to almost every differing !vote in a discussion can be seen as WP:BLUDGEONy and not really respecting people's intelligence in being able to create a cogent opinion on a topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to BLUDGEON here. When I do ask questions, I'm asking them in cases where I feel it's valid to inquire further. For instance, here, josh's comment implies sources that have not been acknowledged to this point. If these sources prove notability, it would be good for the whole discussion to see to allow them to make a proper argument on whether this article should be kept or not, as new sources can definitely sway a lot of the discussion.

I will also note in this discussion that outside of this comment, I have only replied to two other oppose comments. One was the IP's, and the other was yours, which outright tried to dismiss my argument entirely. This required me to elaborate on my points in order to avoid further confusion, as I did not want later participants in the AfD being confused about my rationale for opening the discussion in the first place. A BLUDGEON is "where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." If I were attempting to "force my view," I'd have replied to quite literally every comment without regard for the actual arguments being made, positing the exact same thing, such as my reply to your initial comment, over and over. This would have included nearly every "Keep" vote, or every comment that suggested Redirect over Deletion like my original nomination proposed, which is not the case. I'd appreciate not immediately assuming that I'm acting in bad faith solely because I'm acting as an active participant in the discussion. Either way, I'll try and stick out of replying further in order to avoid complicating the process, as I've clarified my points enough already. In any case, I would still like to see the sources josh is referring to though, since this could potentially bolster the "Keep" side's argument tremendously. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bludgeoning to ask for sources when a person alludes to sources they haven't actually identified. Hey man im josh can you please clarify your stance? It's causing confusion that I can't help explain. Its not really clear what sources you're referring to when you say you've found sources that satisfy NLIST. I'm not opposed to a keep stance but I having a hard time finding one that doesn't violate VAGUEWAVE so far... Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Pokelego999: What exactly is the reason for deletion? Are you actually saying that there isn't enough coverage on the video games (excluding the Mansion series)? Are you saying there aren't enough installments (excluding the Mansion series)? I re-read the nomination summary but I still do not understand because the point of the article is highlight video games where Luigi is the main character which it appears to be doing. So what exactly is the argument? Sackkid (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clarify. The problem is not that the article isn't doing its job, but that the article just doesn't really have a valid spin-out rationale. The Luigi "series" isn't really a verifiable series per what sources I could find outside of LM, and Luigi games, outside of being a series, similarly lack sourcing outside of the Year of Luigi, which is more tied to that event than anything else. As such, it falls under something like Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, as Luigi's games cannot be verified as a notable sub-group of games independently of the Luigi character. So yes, it's very much an issue of coverage on the games, barring LM, as well as the installments themselves being largely unrelated outside of Luigi happening to be the main character, with no real sources to verify the notability of these games as a notable group. I hope this clarifies my points a bit more succinctly, but let me know if you need more elaboration on anything. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me ask this. If take out anything having to do Mario (with the exception of Mario Is Missing!; and treat Mario as a random character in that instance), would you still feel the same way? Because if we take Mario completely out of this, I still think it is a great stand-alone page. I think the lack of sources around the "Luigi's Hammer Toss" and "Mario Is Missing!" come from the fact that it was released in the 90s. But "New Super Luigi U" and "Dr. Luigi" have their own pages. Sackkid (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would feel the same way, mainly due to a lack of sourcing either way and the fact the page is covering even less subjects than it was before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete or split?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSS Science and Technology University

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

Private universities must pass WP:NCORP, this one fails it. The article is a brochure for the organisation with many primary sources and dead links. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Science, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When It's Time

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

Completely fails WP:GNG. My initial WP:BEFORE searches didn't turn up much except for mentions in announcements for the 30th anniversary edition of Dookie, and trivial name drops in reviews about the play itself. Charting once is not enough to demonstrate notability. It also doesn't help that there isn't a single reliable source in use in the article at present. I propose a redirect to American Idiot: The Original Broadway Cast Recording λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 23 August 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 17:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSS Academy of Higher Education & Research

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

Another "JSS...." educational establishment article wth appalling sourcing, dead links, a job advert, and directory entries. The NIR sources are meant to verify some sort of performance comparator, but are 404 errors. WP:ADMASQ, and fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Schools, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-victim

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

WP:SYNTH for a nonnotable neologism. The word itseld can be foun in the internets, but the specific term usage appears to come from a single source. --Altenmann >talk 17:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Shenker

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

This article only concerns a corporate lawyer and is entirely about this person's work for a law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell. When checking the sources there are few independent WP:BASIC sources, and the subject overall fails that criteria, lacking significant and independent coverage. It also doesn't help that the article is written in a promotional tone. It was created in July by a WP:SPA.

. There is an independent Wall Street Journal Article, but little other than that in terms of independent sources. A Business Insider article is short, minor, with only superficial coverage, and the NYT source just has brief mentions as well. GuardianH (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with analysis above, a senior partner at a law firm and now into management with the firm, nothing very notable that I can see. WSJ is the best source, rest are name drops as explained. I don't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interview [11] by a Forbes contributor, and it's about the best that I could find. A !redirect to the law firm would be ok too. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the lists aren't notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Other problems exist: Verifiability varies, but many of these are poorly referenced. Almost all events cataloged are not independently notable. The lists don't have clear inclusion criteria -- "entertainment events" doesn't specifically exclude or include sporting events, for example. While the lists are mostly music performances, other performances are ignored. mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the same basis:

-- mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonencyclopedic. WIkipedia not catalog. --Altenmann >talk 17:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These need to be individually nominated (and some were already kept once or twice before individually); some events are naturally excluded because they're not meant for public attendance (for instance, shareholder meetings or private religious rallies) or don't meet our criteria plain and simple (made for TV events or an obvious industry plant where those in the crowd are paid to be there and fill seats or all get free tickets). As always with these >5 article nominations I just don't see a bulk nom as a good way to filter through GNG/N. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in the Americas

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

This is basically a directory article again, WP:NOTADIRECTORY, we have categories for this. We don't need list article for this. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Lists, South America, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 16 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!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A reasonable navigation tool; only remove items without wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation tool? What's wrong with a category or a template? That doesn't really seem like a valid argument for keeping the article. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in the Middle East and Africa

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

What wikipedia is not, is not a WP:NOTADIRECTORY which this article clearly is. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Lists, Africa, and Middle East. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 16 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!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A reasonable navigation tool; only remove items without wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, like I replied in the other article, Navigation tool? What's wrong with a category or a template? That doesn't really seem like a valid argument for keeping the article. It still violates NOTADIRECTORY. Govvy (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger D. Nelson

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

I'm having trouble finding secondary sources independent of this subject. WP:FRINGE is also a concern here. 0xchase (talk) 14:17, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might pass AUTHOR with book reviews [12], [13], but I wonder if those are about the same person; wiki article is about a parapsychologist, this seems to be about a more mainstream psychologist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The first review you list is in Journal of Scientific Exploration, which (searching WP:FRINGEN archives) appears not to be considered reliable. The second is from the Society for Psychical Research, also of dubious reliability. Per WP:FRINGE, we need mainstream coverage of this material, not affirmations from other believers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AUTHOR is just passing book reviews, no matter how good or bad they are. I suppose they aren't RS? Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they're positive or negative is not so important, but whether they're reliable is important. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe publications aren't a reliable source of information, regardless of the valence of the review 0xchase (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this and improve it. It is the way of the future; the Global Consciousness Project is now in it second phase and is set to be a vital source of information about the interaction of consciousness with the material world. Those who cling to materialism are a dying breed. 197.88.230.219 (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant the notability or lack of sources here Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, for articles on fringe subjects, we must base them on reliably-published mainstream sources, we have no independent sources at all in our article, I don't think the two reviews listed above are mainstream, and I could not find better in my searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of usable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the nonsense his work is, there does appear to be coverage of Nelson and his work over the course of multiple years. Some examples:

So Just What Makes the Earth Move? by JD Reed - The New York Times
The day the world got smaller by Claudia Smith Brinson (Page 2) - The State
Far out: The Global Mind by Mark Pilkington - The Guardian
When all earth grieves: Science finds astonishing consequences of our pain by Sarah Gibb - The Vancouver Sun
Shared tragedies breeding global consciousness: study - The StarPhoenix
Cambridge Institute Delves Into Paranormal Phenomena by Kenneth Chang - The Tampa Tribune
Roger Nelson’s “Global Consciousness” Does Not Exist by Dominique J. Persoons - European Journal of Theology and Philosophy

The exact sort of paranormal work he does appears to be the kind that gets the clicks and notice from the news media. Silver seren^C 23:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most or any of these pass both WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV

Some of these uncritically embrace the paranormal stuff and clearly aren't mainstream
Most of these sources are primarily covering the Global Consciousness Project and only make passing mention of Nelson. The GCP already has its own article, and Nelson doesn't get inherited notability.

0xchase (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming mainstream major newspapers aren't "mainstream" just because they are uncritical? Whether they embrace a fringe topic or criticize it is irrelevant. It is significant coverage regardless. And it is coverage of his research, which is relevant for coverage toward him, since while he's fringe, this still falls under notability for academics. And, for this fringe field, he is clearly both a discussed and noted expert that has received significant news focus. Silver seren^C 21:03, 23 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!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion --Altenmann >talk 21:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC) delete The refs listed by Silver screen above are sensationalist blurbs and other not very reliable sources. In topics like this an encyclopedia needs references from mainstream experts. --Altenmann >talk 17:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your opinion on "topics like this" is irrelevant toward notability, including for those of academics, fringe or not. Are you seriously claiming entire multi-page articles in major newspapers are "sensationalist blurbs"? Please explain how significant coverage for notability works in your view, Altenmann. Silverseren^C 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didnt pay attention that some texts are really long. Reclusing for now; lazy to do research. --Altenmann >talk 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps we should redirect to Global Consciousness Project?. 0xchase (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read the assessment of my sources above, if they aren't RS, we don't have much of anything left for notability. I don't think a redirect would help, I question the notability of the Project as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What assessment? I'm seeing none above and no actual discussion of the sources I presented. Especially if you're claiming that large page news articles don't count toward even notability of the project in question. How exactly are you determining notability, Oaktree b? Silver seren^C 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Epstein commented on the two sources directly below my first comment to !keep, which I've since changed. I was talking about my first vote. I've not reviewed the other, newer ones identified further down. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might take a look at them later, I have no time to do so now. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Rebellion in popular culture

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Popular culture, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep? It seems that this article is sourced which suggests it is notable. Is there a problem with the sources here? If not, then it's fine. Parent article is very long so a spin-out on this topic per summary style is fine, as long as the sources discuss the later cultural influence - which it seems that they do. SnowFire (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire, I just want to note that the parent article Eureka Rebellion was significantly smaller prior to Robbiegibbons first edit. In December 2020, during their first edit, it was 87k bits long. This isn't a case of an article being so long that someone came along and made some splits to make things more readable. With all these articles, plus Battle of the Eureka Stockade, which they created, and all the other associated articles they have created or edited, we are looking at over a million bytes written on this topic by this user. I recommended a higher level article first, such as Legacy of the Eureka Rebellion, which could capture a lot of this information from all these topics. Taken as a whole, I think the purpose I am trying to get at is that this all needs to be better summarized in a succinct manner. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Backing up to first principles here... so there are parts of Wikipedia that are weirdly detailed walled gardens. Some of them are celebrated as a really talented writer collecting every scrap of well-sourceable information on a topic and providing a comprehensive overview, and others are derided as "cruft" and fans run amuck. But... what's the difference? To me the answer is: reliable sources. If there is a topic with extremely deep coverage and good sources on it, mining them out in detail is fine, as long as they're not overstretched to SYNTH degrees. (Think individual Bible episodes, Shakespeare sonnets, etc., which can have entire books on 'em.) If it's just OR and old Geocities pages and primary sources and fan webpages by random independents, then it's a problem. That's why I asked "Is there a problem with the sources here?" above. If these are good sources Robbie is citing, then all of these AFDs should be closed as keep. As he's pointed out himself, we have similarly detailed articles on the Alamo and the like, so I don't find it unreasonable to believe that similarly deep sourcing exists for the Eureka Rebellion as does the Texan Revolution. Now, if it turns out that the sources are, say, print-to-demand Kindle direct books published by a random fan, or the sources are being greatly misrepresented & stretched, I could be convinced to adjust my vote toward the deletion direction. But I'd want to see evidence of that - not merely a general "this seems like too much info" vibe. (See Category:Ned Kelly or the like for an example of an Australian with a bunch of stuff related to him that is presumably valid to have.) SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In accord with SnowFire here, per WP:NEXIST, what sources exist? With a preliminary search, I can see Frost's chapter "Refighting the Eureka Stockade: Managing a Dissonant Battlefield" in Battlefield Tourism (Routeledge, 2007), Couzens' article "Cinematic visions of Australian colonial authority in Captain Thunderbolt (1953), Robbery Under Arms (1957) and Eureka Stockade (1949)" in Studies in Australasian Cinema (2016), Skilton's chapter "Mining, Masculinity, and Morality: Understanding the Australian National Imaginary Through Iconic Labor" in Gendering Nationalism (Springer 2018), Vine's chapter "Colonial Larrikins" in Larrikins, Rebels and Journalistic Freedom in Australia (Springer 2021). There's a very large amount of material on this, an event which has resonated through Australian history for more than a century and a half. This is a perfectly reasonable WP:OKFORK. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:17, 23 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!} 17:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vexillology of the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is a flags of the confederacy article that is along the same lines as the one nominated for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eureka Flag. Appears to be a redundant fork; willing to change my !vote if a clear distinction in sourcing can be shown. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
realistically all this content can be merged I just thought it was handy that's all. a big percentage of the time someone looks for stuff about the eureka rebellion it relates to vexillology. if the article stands it will have a fine gallery. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:44, 23 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!} 17:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Samad Dawood

AfDs for this article:

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

Little has changed in his fortunes since the last AFD eight months ago. He's still a successful and civic-minded businessman from a prominent Pakistani business family, and has worked at a high level for some notable companies. But on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. I couldn't find SIGCOV of him in English or Urdu, just passing mentions in articles about the companies and organisations he's worked for, nothing to bring it up to the standard of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If only he had appeared in a few dramas, even in tiny roles, his BLP might have been easily saved from deletion under WP:NACTOR! But it’s ironic that someone so important in Pakistan's business community doesn’t have enough coverage that meets GNG. Anyway, I’ll hold off on voting for now. PS. No offense to the nominator Wikishovel, who also has legitimate reasons for taking it to AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not a slam dunk; outside of the Engro connection, there are no RS that discuss him and we only have source 13 that is helpful. Rest are yellow per Source Highlighter, so of moderate reliability. I still don't see/find much else we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Arbelaez

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

Poorly sourced footballer. I was unable to find enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a handful of sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Colombia, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bailey

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

No evidence of passing WP:NFICT – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling automobiles in China

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

These data are not official, probably OR. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 14:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 14:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and China. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not clean up. – The Grid (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of coverage of the topic out there. Meets WP:NLIST. C F A 💬 16:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Automotive industry in China. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 alleged Paris blackout

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

This is a non-notable internet phenomenon/hoax. The blackout didn't happen (as the factchecking references attest) so all we are left with is a number of non-WP:RS sites and YouTube making bizarre claims that failed to reach WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, Olympics, Internet, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnotable non-event with no expecxted sustained notability. --Altenmann >talk 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contraire, since it was during the Olympics and in Paris, no less, people will remember this.Jeanette the Transbian Martin (dime?) 00:00 24 August, 2024 (UTC}

delete seems to be just some random internet hoax with no significant and respectable sources Pothos144 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- There are articles here about other hoaxes, and Reuters and Fox are respectable sources.Jeanette Your Favorite lover Martin (dime?) 00:00 24 August, 2024 (UTC}
Delete If this happened EDF would've known and had statements about it immediately, and it would've been worldwide breaking news. Probably from the same oddball YouTube fandom that thinks anytime color bars appear on a channel it's a signal intrusion, along with Christofacist trash like source #5 (read WP:YOUTUBE @JeanetteMartin:); learn news literacy and about off buttons. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, Fox and Reuters and MSNBC, I believe (MSNBC), covered it so regardless that the EDF did not, its still a notable event. Also, look at my background. I am a transgender woman who has been here editing for 21 years. Nothing further from some of these You Tube right wing channels (although I am myself a Christian). Jeanette Mami Sexy Martin (dime?) 00:00 24 August, 2024 (UTC}
Merge with 2024 Summer Olympics: could be a brief mention near the bottom of the article. Interesting piece of folklore around the event, but nothing notable by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the preferred outcome.Jeanette Redirect me! Martin (dime?) 00:00 24 August, 2024 (UTC}

Governor-Chief Minister conflict of West Bengal

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

Why is this particular relationship between two government offices in West Bengal particularly notable? Yes, there are many examples provided where conflicts occur, but this is a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to suggest there's something unique here. Nothing links to this article. No independent recognition that this is remarkable. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very much OR. Most of the sources are indirectly about this "conflict"; I don't see or find much of anyone else discussing it however. Likely not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's mentioned in the last month [14] in the media, but I don't see confirmation that this has been an ongoing issue. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete - It is an government and political conflict which is going on in West Bengal state on every issue and it is a very vital issue for the state. So it should not get deleted.

VNC200 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: VNC200 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

But conflict is immensely common among government bodies (some might even argue it is essential). There's nothing uniquely notable about this particular case. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 FIFA Series

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

Don't need separate season article for this, as it's just a bunch of friendly matches without substantial coverage. The sources are mostly just match results rather than significant coverage, so doesn't pass WP:GNG independently from the general FIFA Series article I.e. sources about the history/creation are useful for GNG on the main FIFA Series article, but do not prove that an individual season article is needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep? I don't know, there is enough there, maybe what I would call a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage, but a lot of sources around to digest, I've looked at a couple of them. But from what I see I have nothing against the article. Mine is a pretty weak keep mind you. Govvy (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of it might be resultcruft - but some of it might be best merged to FIFA Series. Geschichte (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure about every single group, but the Croatian knock out group certainly received a lot of substantial coverage at the time. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to FIFA Series - personally I've never heard of this and I'm a big football fan! Shows how lacking the detailed coverage is. Giant Snowman 10:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason for deletion - it was major news in some participating countries [15] SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is more than routine coverage, in English. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – How do these FIFA Series matches differ from ordinary friendly matches? It doesn't really seem like a serious competition. Svartner (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is separated in a distinct category by the FIFA themselves... I totally get your point but it was their decision to make into another event. Silvymaro (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As pointed above, the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't technically grant basis for an article... Yet still it is an official FIFA event and merging all (2026, 2028 and so on) events into one huge article eventually will create a problem. The real question at this point if FIFA Series are a distinguished sports event worth keep a record, and in my opinion it is. Sure you can slap WP:NOTEVERYTHING on half the articles there, but would that not defeat the scope of Wikipedia? Silvymaro (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic

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

Basically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Gaza humanitarian crisis.

More importantly, off all the given sources, only a single one (The National) uses the term "epidemic" in its own voice, with 2 more quoting the Gaza Health Ministry's declaration of an epidemic. RS hasn't been using the term epidemic (probably because as of now there haven't been any confirmed cases yet. There are strong fears of a coming epidemic, and polio has been found in the sewage, but thankfully no infections). At the very least the article needs to be considerably shortened, and name changed to "Polio discoveries" or something. Violates Crystal Ball. It's also not being (significantly) covered by RS on its own, but rather as part of the broader crisis. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Middle East. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis - Wouldn't be opposed to recreating the article later if more sources begin to call the Polio issue an epidemic, but a redirect would suffice for right now. Jdcomix (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Redirecting the current title if the term "epidemic" is not being used by multiple reliable sources would violate WP:NDESC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gaza humanitarian crisis. My first impression is that we should probably redirect. Now to read with care... Yeah, merge with Gaza humanitarian crisis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move or merge. There are plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage, so deleting it isn’t warranted. If kept, a move or rename to 2024 Gaza Strip polio outbreak or the like would be appropriate. I don’t oppose the merger, however the main article could get filled with a lot of more important and less important trivia; see what happened at one time to Palestinian law. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - and expand. Could be broadened to "infectious diseases outbreaks" instead of just polio, but it warrants its own coverage separate from starvation and other issues. FourPi (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/8/16/israel-war-on-gaza-live-children-killed-in-israeli-attack-on-jabalia-camp, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/16/un-chief-calls-for-polio-pause-in-gaza-war-to-tackle-virus and FourPi. Pachu Kannan (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Al Jazeera article does not use the term "Polio Epidemic" in its own voice. Hydromania (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza humanitarian crisis is a redirect (it should appear as a green link) so it won't be possible to redirect or merge to it. So you might want to look at ITS target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and rename article without using the term 'epidemic', as there is no metric that describes a cluster of three cases as an epidemic. My preference is to use the term 'cases' or 'outbreak' as per Bearian's reasoning and suggestion on 16 August 2024 immediately before AfD was relisted. AllPurposeScientist^blah 11:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that I generally agree with the original reasoning 2 weeks ago, but the situation appears to be more clearly defined now. AllPurposeScientist^blah 11:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis - there is no epidemic of polio in Gaza, and none of the sources used in the article describe the situation as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston UnCommon (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis. There still appears to be a single case confirmed in reliable sources. The only group claiming an "epidemic" is the unreliable Gaza Health Ministry, and an "outbreak" of one can easily be contained in another article. Seeing that the article title has already been changed, I am revising my !vote to redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, Gaza humanitarian crisis is not a possible target article because it is not an article, it is a Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of which, should this discussion be moved to the current page name 2024 Gaza Strip polio outbreak? I don't know who moved it or when, but there don't seem to have been any objections to the name change and I don't object either, outbreak is what the sources say. FourPi (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - It is not a fork or redundant, it's a subtopic that needs expanding. We should also start a page with an overview of the multiple other infectious disease problems in Gaza that currently aren't covered much on other pages, if this needs merging it would be into that, but that currently doesn't exist. FourPi (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Budapest

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

Fails WP:GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sources provided do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Hungary, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article charts the significant history of the British Embassy in Budapest, the sources highlight its notability and link with the evacuation of Jews during the holocaust. AusLondoner is on a mindless campaign to delete all embassy pages. Cantab12 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As such it should be kept. Cantab12 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish consul rented space in a bank and declared it diplomatic premises to shelter Jews during the Holocaust. How is this related to the British embassy? AusLondonder (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*KEEP*~~ There is a link with the Swiss too who took over the site as a neutral power during WWII. Please stop. Cantab12 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Cantab12 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete unfortunately, many buildings have had to be used to shelter refugees. I don't see any significant coverage that indicates that this was particularly notable that would satisfy GNG. ForksForks (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hungary–United Kingdom relations#Resident diplomatic missions. While a case can be made to keep, as has been done above, the parent article is short and can contain this information without creating a real situation of UNDUE. Whatsmore, the information on the embassies now is minimal and less. Here, too, an ATD should have been proposed and, ideally, the merge discussion should have been used. gidonb (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To decide between delete, merge or redirect. The contribution of Cantab12 will have to be disregarded as it contains personal attacks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Boris

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

Fails WP:BASIC — no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Popcornfud (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film. Popcornfud (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Mohammad Mokhber

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

Hello, after the death of Ebrahim Raisi, no new government has been formed in Iran and only Mohammad Mokhber, Ebrahim Raisi's deputy, temporarily headed the 13th cabinet until Masoud Pezeshkian won the 2024 election and became the president of Iran and formed the 14th cabinet. I must point out that the formation of the cabinet by Mohammad Mokhber was possible if he presented a list of proposed ministers to the Islamic Consultative Assembly and asked for a vote of confidence from the representatives, However, according to Iranian law, dismissal and vote of confidence in cabinet ministers are prohibited until the new president takes office. It should be noted that a similar page was created for this topic in Persian Wikipedia, which led to the deletion of that page in the request for deletion on June 8, 2024. Mihanyar (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Chudý

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

Chudý played 14 matches for AS Trenčín before being sent to lower leagues. My searches did not show any significant coverage for him, not even in reliable secondary sources. Searching "Denis Chudý" on Google prefer to find other men with the same name instead of footballer, failing WP:V too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like there might be some SIGCOV here if anyone has access to Sme. JTtheOG (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk)

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.

Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no reliable third party sources present or discoverable to meet GNG, no notable election victories or the like to justify notability. Also appears to be defunct. Due to splits and other events regarding international organisation it was a part of, there's no clear redirect target. As a result should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Appears to be a minor and insignificant group, as the nominator said. Web searches of the English and Malay names yielded no significant coverage by reliable sources. Yue🌙 05:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Stamper

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

She fails WP:BIO , WP:JOURNALIST and definitely WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Television, and England. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did not find enough coverage in WP:RS, and does not meet any specific guidelines. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:03, 16 August 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 14:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Withdrawn. TarnishedPath^talk 01:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) TarnishedPath^talk 01:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petteway v. Galveston County

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

This is a work of original research given that it overwhelmingly relies on primary sources. This requires WP:TNT. TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, United States of America, and North America. TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — You have not described why it requires WP:TNT or refuted that WP:NEXIST is applicable to this page. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The citation of primary sources is not ipso facto original research. Primary sources are not banned on this project. A document, such as the text of this judgment, is a reliable source for its own contents. The New York Times is a secondary source. Houston Public Media is a secondary source. The judgment is a secondary historical source with respect to the legislation and earlier law reports discussed in the judgment. The topic satisfies GNG. There is other significant coverage in Google News, such as the Washington Post. There is no case for TNT. James500 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I see two secondary sources in addition to the relevant primary sources. I also don't see anything that looks like obvious OR upon a cursory look. In addition to that, the subject of this article generally seems important to current issues of gerrymandering and voter suppression in American law and politics, it's neutrally written, and it's short. This article serves the reading public who come to Wikipedia for facts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to withdraw this nomination and close as Keep. I generally view such a heavy reliance on primary sources to be original research and thought it best to start this from scratch minus such a heavy reliance on primary sources. Obviously others disagree and I'll be guided by that. TarnishedPath^talk 01:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dynasty (Miia song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. A redirect to Miia_(singer)#Singles would not be a bad idea. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Entertainment, and Norway. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tongan National Rugby League

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

Article has a signle reference which isn't actually anything to do with the article subject. Google searching the topic only returns the Wikipedia and the Facebook page. "Official Website" is a GoDaddy domain sale site. Mn1548 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debobrato Mukherjee

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

Non-notable actor. Roles are mainly small roles, I could not find anything to support multiple significant roles. The sources are passing mentions, at best, many sources don't even mention this person at all. Ravensfire (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Ravensfire (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 21 sources on the page and not a single one of them have any indepth coverage on the subject. Even a simple Google search did not show any result with reliable secondary independent sources on the subject. Subject is a very minor actor with minor roles in movies and not notable to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBIO WP:NACTOR RangersRus (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Mountains (northern San Bernardino County, California)

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

This reads like WP:OR, a mountain range not mentioned on any maps but mentioned in a "summary report" from the GNIS only. Note that these are not the Granite Mountains (California) in the same county. Fram (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Fram (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment It is in fact labelled on the topo quads mentioned, running WNW from the peak whose coordinates are provided in the article. It's entirely within Ft. Irwin and there are very few versions of the quads in question, but that's where GNIS got the label from. That said, I'm uncomfortable about an article entirely sourced to maps. Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mountains are mentioned at https://schweich.com/geoCASBrNGraniteMtns.html, which cites a print publication. It's available at https://authors.library.caltech.edu/records/swm8k-gqa46 pages 234-235.

https://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=16788 says the highest point in this range is 5295 ft. and includes a topo map with notation that there's a radio tower on it.

https://naturalatlas.com/ranges/granite-mountains-1559320 says the Granite Mountains are in Fort Irwin, but then links to the wrong Wikipedia article - showing the need for a correct article. Their *text* says it's in Mojave National Preserve, but the topo map they include on the site is for the Granite Mountains in Fort Irwin, in northern S.B. county. This topo map includes a road to the top, which may be how they got the radio tower there.

This range in Fort Irwin is mentioned in a USGS publication, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1024/c/ofr20131024c.pdf see map on p. 7

So this name is not just restricted to topo maps. Spartaborn (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This set of Granite Mountains in northern San Bernardino County is mentioned in the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owlshead_Mountains and correctly does not have a link to the article about the Mojave set of mountains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_peaks_of_California also mentions Granite Mountains, but erroneously links to the Granite Mountains (California) article. The GPS coordinates go the the Granite Mountains in Riverside County. Just another illustration of why more articles are needed, even if they are stubs. Spartaborn (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "They might be...it may be..." is as OR as it gets. As the previous user said, an article sourced entirely to maps is probably not appropriate, because USGS maps provide little information beyond coordinates, elevation, and topography (certainly nothing of a narrative sort). Nondescript name and existence of another Granite Mountains in the same area makes searching for further information hopeless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to delete the OR, and it's true that USGS maps provide little information. However, if readers want to get more info about these mountains and go to Wikipedia, they are going to get wrong information, if the (California) article is the only one that exists. Maybe the disambiguation page is all that's necessary. Spartaborn (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mountains are mentioned on the topographic maps mentioned in the article. Spartaborn (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that these are not the Granite Mountains (California) is precisely why this article is needed. When there is only one article about Granite Mountains, readers might well assume that this is the only range called Granite Mountains in the state or in the county, and this is not true. If they are seeking information about the Granite Mountains in northern S.B. county, and the only Wikipedia article is about a different mountain range entirely, then they are going to get wrong information. Readers need some warning that there is some terminological confusion. Spartaborn (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Spartaborn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Weak Keep and Disambiguate if a disambiguation page is created. I agree with the need for warning that there is some terminological confusion. Deleting the article will not solve this problem. The problem will only arise again when someone else creates an article for any of the Granite Mountains. There are seven "Granite Moutains" listed in the United States of which three are in San Bernardino County. California according to the GNIS Search. Paul H. (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aditional comment From the GNIS Domestic Names Search, the three Granite Mountains in San Bernardino County are 1. Granite Mounatins (Fairview Valley 24k topo map, 34.5026882 -117.0798862); 2. Granite Mounatins (Bighorn Basin 24k map); and Granite Mountains (Drinkwater Lake 24k map, 35.4515272 -116.5966914). Hopefully, having the 24k topographic maps and longitude and latitude will help people sort this out. Paul H. (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is hugely confusing because there are three different Granite Mountains in San Bernadino County alone. Importantly, though, if you can identify which Granite Mountains these are - discussion of their proximity to the Avawatz Mountains helps - they appear and are discussed in at least two different geological articles, which puts them beyond WP:GEOFEAT, and a 1929 article discusses springs in the range, so it's not just sourced to maps. There may be more sources as well. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California Library Association

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

This phone book like entry does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:NOTAWEBHOST, WP:NCORP , WP:NOTADIRECTORY Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and California. Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is a stub that needs to be expanded. Please scroll to the page bottom and see the Library associations of the United States navbox. You will see this one listed along with all the other States. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After having looked at what's in them, I feel quite a few of them fail to meet WP:NORG, nor would they quite quality as WP:NONPROFIT given they're individual local association. Kind of like local business alliances. Graywalls (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The chapter connection to the American Library Association is minimal and insufficient reason to delete.

This organization is independent serving the development of library services for nearly 40 million people.Kmccook (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kmccook How many people CLA serves is irrelevant; both the CLA bylaws and ALA website say that CLA is a chapter of ALA. Under WP:BRANCH, "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Such sources are not in evidence Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why do we have pages for sports teams that are part of a larger league?Kmccook (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is a rhetorical question, but I'll WP:AGF: Sports teams are subject to WP:NSPORT and organizations are subject to WP:NORG. Different guidelines for different subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support @Kmccook in saying that the connection ALA is minimal. Membership is completely separate. Jennaf (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Library Association#National outreach, most likely, due to failure to meet WP:NORG. The California Library Association is a chapter of the American Library Association (see discussion of chapter status here), and that means WP:BRANCH applies here. The key policy: "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." There's lots of news coverage with WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the California Library Association, but precious little WP:SIGCOV, and none that I can find in sources from outside California. To answer Maile's comment above, just because a user has created articles on every library association and put them into a navbox does not meet they are notable. Some may be, and some may not be. Redirecting to the parent org is a good AtD for those that don't pass WP:BRANCH. Moreover, the nomination does not meet any of the conditions for a WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi and Dclemens1971:, Do you know if CLA is a branch/chapter or otherwise fall under the umbrella of ALA? If it is, I support re-dir, but otherwise, del seems more appropriate. Graywalls (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not independent but for verifying the simple fact, it's listed as a chapter on ALA. In CLA's governance (PDF), it references liaising with ALA and "The ALA Chapter Councilor serves as a member of The Board, and represents The Association on the American Library Association Council," so I think we're good on the connection @Graywalls. Star Mississippi 23:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted above. Far from N:ORG pass and no grounds for a speedy keep whatsoever. Star Mississippi 01:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve - As someone who did the work on some of these state association articles, and who knows that CLA is one of the largest state library associations in the US, I'll see if I can find multiple, reliable non-local sources which report on it non-trivially. Jessamyn (my talk page) 21:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this was an early and large association, there are sources, like this: "The War on Books and Ideas: The California Library Association and Anti-Communist Censorship in the 1940s and 1950s", possibly this "The California State Library School" (I can't get more than the first page but the G-Books snippet was about CLA). There's this: Schwartz, B. (1974). The Role of the American Library Association in the Selection of Archibald MacLeish as Librarian of Congress. The Journal of Library History (1974-1987), 9(3), 241-264. - which has a statement about the role of the CLA. I'm not sure about this next one; it's from UC Press, usually a reliable source, but it seems to be typewritten. It still may have some useful information. I'm sure there's more if we dig enough. Lamona (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is by Cindy Mediavilla, who “has served the California Library Association (CLA) in many roles, including assembly member-at-large, newsletter editor, conference planning chair, and CLA president,” and thus is not independent coverage. The fourth item appears to be a trivial mention. The second item, by Josephine Kunkle, does appear to be SIGCOV in a reliable, independent source outside California per WP:BRANCH. That’s one—let’s find multiple. Open to switching my !vote if more adequate sources can be found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the Mediavilla isn't "independent coverage". She wasn't involved with the organization during the time period she writes about ('40's and '50's), she wasn't working for the organization at the time she wrote, and it's in a peer-reviewed journal. By this logic, anyone who held a post in an organization in the past cannot be cited to present historical research about the organization. For people who serve in numerous government offices, that does not seem to be a viable policy, since they often write important pieces. Can Henry Kissinger not be cited re: US international policy? I don't think that's what is meant when we say sources must be independent. Lamona (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:ORGIND, which says "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." Someone as involved as Mediavilla cannot be described as "unrelated," and thus her writing about the organization cannot be considered independent. I would have no problem using her work to validate facts about the organization in the article, but the test of notability for organizations requires independence, so it wouldn't count for this particular conversation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that we cannot consider Henry Kissinger an independent source for ... anything related to United States foreign policy, at any time in US history. I gotta say, I disagree. Her PEER-REVIEWED paper is both non-trivial and non-routine. Lamona (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say we can't consider Kissinger an independent source on US foreign policy. I also think Mediavilla can be an independent source on librarianship in general. What I would say is that we cannot consider Mediavilla an independent source on the California Library Association, just as Henry Kissinger would not be considered an independent source on Kissinger Associates. This is about WP:NORG, which is slightly different and more stringent than WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not analogous. CLA was not created by her - she was an employee AT ONE POINT, but not when she wrote this article which was about a time that PRECEDED her involvement with the organization. So if anyone is ever employed by a company or organization we consider their writings about that company or organization AFTER THEY HAVE LEFT, even if they write about an aspect of the organization they were not involved with, to be non-independent? WP:ORGIND unfortunately does not clarify that among the relationships it lists all prior relationships with a company are included but I think we will run into absurdities if we reject sources from people who have had ANY kind of relation to the organization sometime in the past. Lamona (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This point is factually inaccurate; Mediavilla published the article in 1997, while she was close to the apex of a longtime career as a CLA volunteer leader (she was president in 2001). But I am more concerned by an apparent view that WP:ORGIND should be amended? If that's your argument, this is the wrong forum for that debate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at my desk now and can access the Wikipedia Library. The Schwartz source has a single trivial mention: "The largest library groups opposing this nomination were the University of California Library School at Berkeley; the California Library Association (2,000) under the leadership of their President, Sydney B. Mitchell; Carnegie Institute of Technology as represented by President Robert E. Doherty; and the Library School of Carnegie Institute as represented by their Associate Director and Members of Faculty." No SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since we've had sources proposed in this discussion, I'm going to share a source table to evaluate them. So far, I see only one source that clears WP:ORGCRIT. Please feel free to add more; I'll change my !vote if we can find multiple sources that provide sigcov beyond California and that are secondary, independent and reliable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED115285.pdf	Presentation at CLA meeting by a CLA member	Unpublished paper delivered at a CLA meeting
https://archive.org/details/riseofpubliclibr0000held/page/88/mode/2up	Book published by CLA's parent association, the American Library Association
https://www.svvoice.com/librarians-are-booked-at-california-library-associations-2018-conference/			Local news source; needs to be substantial coverage beyond California per WP:BRANCH
https://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/call/; https://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/trustees/; https://www.library.ca.gov/services/to-libraries/lunch/	Official webpages of state government agency partnering with CLA on particular programs			Primary source
https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/133533/Francoeur%20McCarthyism%20and%20Libraries--final%20draft.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y		Master's degree thesis; per WP:DISSERTATION, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25540574			A single WP:TRIVIALMENTION: "The largest library groups opposing this nomination were the University of California Library School at Berkeley; the California Library Association (2,000) under the leadership of their President, Sydney B. Mitchell; Carnegie Institute of Technology as represented by President Robert E. Doherty; and the Library School of Carnegie Institute as represented by their Associate Director and Members of Faculty."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40322191			Significant academic discussion (in a source outside California) of association involvement in starting California Library School
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/8110/bitstreams/27881/data.pdf	The author "has served the California Library Association (CLA) in many roles, including assembly member-at-large, newsletter editor, conference planning chair, and CLA president. She is a founding member of the CLA Library History Round Table (now Interest Group)" (see here)
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sVlE_oIAPzQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=%22California+Library+Association%22&ots=P-cGSOUu9W&sig=crmqU7JzA-EUlHvA-WPbkCilnFM#v=snippet&q=%22California%20Library%20Association%22&f=false			There is a single mention of the organization in this book.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fung Kwok Wai

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

Subject lacks sufficient in-depth coverage in sources to argue that WP:GNG is met. The best source I found in my WP:BEFORE search was this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympique Lyonnais (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Given mass nominations of a dozen of these articles separately, there has been little to no engagement with these deletion discussions. Thus, I am not convinced that relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Malinaccier (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray S.K. (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Given mass nominations of a dozen of these articles separately, there has been little to no engagement with these deletion discussions. Thus, I am not convinced that relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Malinaccier (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girondins de Bordeaux (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Given mass nominations of a dozen of these articles separately, there has been little to no engagement with these deletion discussions. Thus, I am not convinced that relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Malinaccier (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Basel 1893 (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Given mass nominations of a dozen of these articles separately, there has been little to no engagement with these deletion discussions. Thus, I am not convinced that relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Malinaccier (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ain (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources, are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adrian Čeman

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

Article fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage. Čeman last played for Sereď before shortly moving to Slovan Galanta then disappeared. The best source I found was SME but it's nothing significant. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Workers Thailand

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

The article fails to meet our standards for notability, verifiability, and neutrality, with much of the content lacking reliable sources, containing original research, and exhibiting potential bias, making it unsuitable for inclusion. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Thailand. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured One

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like not meeting NCORP, no reliable media. BoraVoro (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 16 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!} 08:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agora Club International

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

Non-notable service club. There are some secondary sources that mention this organization or its regional/local chapters, but they are all routine news. Some examples: 1, 2, 3. Per my WP:BEFORE there are no WP:ORGDEPTH sources. —Alalch E. 10:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Alalch E. 10:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 16 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!} 08:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China (Superleague Formula team)

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources, are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Kapur

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The article has been padded-out with lots of passing mentions of the subject donating to this or that campaign, but the only significant coverage is in Caravan magazine (notably less positive than the current version of the article) and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (essentially an interview). One independent source isn't enough to achieve a neutral point of view. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 16 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!} 08:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I believe this eligible for soft deletion. – Joe (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka (actress)

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

Clearly a case of WP:BLP1E; the sources are only due to his death. Additionally, she is not a lead actress in any notable film. GrabUp - Talk 06:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 06:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vamsam_(TV_series)#Additional_cast: with one of the notes from the page or other sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References are all about her death which is not notable. Anything else I find simply verifies a role but no significant coverage to meet WP:NACTOR. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. CptViraj (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't make articles on projects that are merely "envisioned". Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 9 August 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 05:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Christie

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NCRIC. A search yields much more hits for someone who appeared on Geordie Shore who may indeed be more notable, so for that reason I oppose redirect of this cricketer's article. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Hong Kong. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be relaxed about a redirect to List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers here - there was a single incoming link from the Geordie Shore chap which indicates there's generally not a major issue here and if necessary a dab page with the two redirects on it can be set up. I'd have thought, however, that the article on CricketCountry would satisfy the last point of SPORTCRIT and there's at least one article on the South China Morning Post from 2016, although it's partly behind a paywall. There's a case that could be made for keeping the article - there's certainly nothing in it that's contentious - there are a lot worse articles than this one that could be brought to AfD. But, again, for me the worst case here is a redirect. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue Square Thing (talk · contribs), I found a non-paywall copy of the South China Morning Post article on archive.today. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Careem, Nazvi (2016-10-24). "How browsing Facebook could change the life of Hong Kong cricket's newest recruit Kyle Christie. Perth-based bowler was surfing the net in Australia when he saw a recruitment call for Hong Kong-born players". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  The article notes: "Kyle Christie was browsing through Facebook when hestumbled upon a post by Cricket Hong Kong that caught his eye. The governing body for cricket in the city was looking for players born in Hong Kong and actively involved in the sport. Christie, 23, felt qualified. Hong Kong-born, playing for Perth side Kalamunda, the fast bowler who can bat replied. ... Within weeks, Christie went from being a club cricketer to one poised to make his full one-day international debut. He's one of the success stories of a programme to scour the world for talented people born in Hong Kong and willing to return to the city and contribute to the game. ... said Christie, whose father was in the Hong Kong police force for 20 years before the family left when he was five."
2. Wildie, Tom (2017-09-24). "Hong Kong chases 2019 Cricket World Cup berth against the odds". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  The article notes: "Hong Kong bowler Kyle Christie plies his trade at club side Midland-Guildford when not on international duty, and saw firsthand the standard required to play at elite level. ... Christie, 24, was born in Hong Kong but moved to Perth when he was three years old. He made his eligibility known to Hong Kong Cricket and, after a successful trial period, was selected in the side about a year ago."
3. Ananth, Pramad (2017-03-21). "Kyle Christie: The cricketer who debuted via Facebook". Cricket Country. Zee Media Corporation. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  The article notes: "When Cricket Hong Kong (CHK) had put up an advertisement on their Facebook page that read “Calling all Hong Kong born cricketers overseas,” Christie had immediately got in touch with CHK. Within a few months made his international debut for Hong Kong against Papua New Guinea (PNG). ... Christie has played with some big guns like Misbah-ul-Haq and Ian Bell (among others) in the recently concluded Hong Kong T20 Blitz. ... Christie is part of the ACC Emerging Teams Cup, which will be played in Bangladesh from March 25 to April 2."
4. "Kyle Christie eyes Kumar Sangakkara's wicket early as Jaguars set date with Gladiators in Hong Kong T20 Blitz 2018 Final". Cricket Country. Zee Media Corporation. 2018-02-10. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  The article notes: "Kyle Christie outshone the luminaries of the star-studded Hung Hom Jaguars to claim figures of 4-0-18-4 as his side convincingly beat Hong Kong Island United by 57 runs. ... Christie was born in Hong Kong and was there when his parents shifted base to Australia. In 2016, he played grade cricket in Perth when he saw an advertisement from Cricket Hong Kong on Facebook, saying ‘looking forward to seeing Hong Kong born players’. He got in touch. He was then invited for trials and things took on. From playing local cricket to rubbing shoulders with international players and making a difference, Christie’s cricket has come a long way."
5. "Perth-based Kyle Christie answers Hong Kong's call with local-born bowler named in squads to face PNG and Kenya". South China Morning Post. 2016-10-17. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  The article notes: "Perth-based fast bowler Kyle Christie was on Monday named in Hong Kong squads to face Papua New Guinea and Kenya in November. Cricket Hong Kong named two separate 14-man squads with Christie included for both series."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kyle Christie to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is https://www.cricketcountry.com/ a reliable source, is it a primary non-independent source? LibStar (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Country is published by Zee Media Corporation. According to the about page, "Cricket country is part of Indiadotcom Digital Private limited. India’s second largest Digital Entity touching more than 300 million monthly users and owns 30 plus digital properties including India.com, Zee news, Zee Business, Zee Hindustan, WION news, Bollywood Life and more." Cunard (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CricketCounty's OK as a source. You have to watch for hyperbole on some of their statistical articles, but it's generally reliable for news stuff like this I'd say. It's not a stats database, it's independent of the subject, it's generally reliable Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources and more participation might help us come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmam Engey

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

Only two potential RS: Guy is RS, the Dina Thanthi source is only cited to a release date change and that seems to be mostly what they publish about movies from what I have seen (could not find the exact article sourced, insufficient info and from 1972). The other cited sources are variously not about topic (Ragunathan), retail (Mossymart), and a list (151 etc). BEFORE found no further RS. Redirect to the director may be a better alternative than deletion, per Mushy Yank, if this discussion doesn't result in Keep. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and India. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cast and director, full article by notable film historian in very reliable newspaper, sources for verification; all in all could be judged enough. A redirect to the director being absolutely warranted in my view, very opposed to deletion (I deproDed the page; same nominator).My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank, could you please point me towards that source if it's online somewhere? I searched and couldn't find it, and everything I could find was extremely sparse with details (hence the PROD and now this). I like to be able to keep articles and make them better if sources exist! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu article cited in the page (the source you call "Guy", I think) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's the one I counted as a reliable source - I was hoping you'd found the Dina Thanthi one (which I couldn't) to make it two RS. Thanks for clarifying! StartGrammarTime (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sivaji_Ganesan_filmography#Films. I would not redirect to director's page as that page is quite poor. As nominator said, only two reliable sources on the page but it has no significant indepth coverage. If reliable secondary sources with indepth coverage can be found, let me know but till then fails wP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments to Keep and Redirect (an outcome I assume the nominator is okay with).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews

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

The majority of Jews in Israel fall into this category. I believe this page should be deleted for the same reason outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Ashkenazi Jews due to no encyclopedic value and numerous WP:BLP and Original Research violations that make rescuing this page impossible. Whizkin (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Whizkin (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging all participants of the previous AFD: @Alaexis; @Number 57; @Gidonb; @DGtal Whizkin (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:OR, this feels like a very wikipedia thing to do, however I honestly don't see any encyclopaedic value for such a list. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leverett Ball

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

Twice declined at WP:AFC, but it was created anyway. Cursory search for sources doesn't reveal much, although as a non-sports-watching-person I may be missing something here (I probably am...I usually do). Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Radio, Television, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article should have never been created. Catfurball (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a minor sideline reporter at best. Fails the GNG; lacking in reliable sources giving significant coverage to the subject. Ravenswing 17:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. What we have here is WP:ADMASQ for his podcast. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-deltoidal icositetrahedron

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

Neither Google Books [16] nor Google Scholars [17] have sources about the allegedly dual polyhedron of a elongated square gyrobicupola, the psuedo-deltoidal icositetrahedron. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:11, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. What is the reason for not merging this with Elongated square gyrobicupola? To me it seems it would be a good idea. Are we now restricted to topics covered by Google? I have possibly missed the discussion. Thincat (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat As I mentioned above, the reason is that no sources mention the pseudo-deltoidal icositetrahedron, and there are no sources say anything about the dual of an elongated square gyrobicupola is that polyhedron. We cannot allow someone to add a fact without giving a supply of sources. That would be considered WP:OR and we should omit it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esertepe Aqua Center

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

No sources are cited, and I can see why: there's barely any coverage of this place on the internet, much less any coverage from reliable sources. I propose deleting this article for failing WP: NBUILD, which requires "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability," a burden this article fails to meet. SSR07 (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Sports, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. And please take out the architect, Günay Erdem, his brother, Sunay Erdem and their firm, Erdem Architects, while you're at it. They're all poorly-sourced adverts principally written by an editor with an undeclared COI, who has subsequently been blocked for advertising. But I've repeatedly been told these aren't grounds for Deletion! KJP1 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taunk

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

A surname page, but none its items is Taunk. Book snippets cited simply mention it, no coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Themes common in gay porn

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 4#Themes common in gay porn. C F A 💬 03:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. C F A 💬 03:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was of questionable value, leading to this discussion. So delete if this is not a useful search term. Do *NOT* merge. Typical porn site category list, sourced to a porn site. No independent RS interest found in search. Encyclopedic content already covered by gay pornography. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a glossary of terms used in pornography, so 'rename and broaden to glossary of pornography (or a similar title) to match the content (many entries are not exclusive to gay porn). Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thryduulf. Rename Glossary of pornography; and clean up.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this is even useful as the start of a "glossary of pornography". Most of the "themes" listed are not specific to porn; they are just sexual slang terms. (Some of the others are just ordinary words like bodybuilder and Arab.) It would make more sense to add the relevant terms to the short list in the Sexual slang article and/or create a spin-off list from that if needed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I suspect part of the relist comment may be referring to my statement above, I want to clarify. If some of the sexual slang terms merit explanation somewhere on Wikipedia, that could be done without copying the specific content in this article. I was not in any way suggesting a merge. --RL0919 (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article reads like a FAQ, which is disallowed under WP:NOTGUIDE. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seemed like an uncontroversial deletion but there are suggestions of a Keep and Rename and even an editor arguing for Delete suggests some content might be Merged. I'd like to see a firmer consensus to Delete or take any action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:SYNTH no sources for psecifically this subject. --Altenmann >talk 04:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOR. Also WP:NOTDICTIONARY TarnishedPath^talk 13:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH / WP:TNT / should have been done at the RFD since the previous AFD resulted in "redirect". Take your pick. Steel1943 (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

BizTalkRadio

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

Subject does not contain the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Business. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't not know why this is up for deletion but I vote keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmtvfan (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are issues with the article, but the first course of action should be to correct those instead of deletion. Stereorock (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would those arguing to Keep please sign their comments and point out which sources provide SIGCOV as asked by the nominator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure what the keep votes are referring to because I have found zero significant coverage. Only a few namechecks in obscure radio blogs. C F A 💬 04:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While a national radio network, it is lower-tier enough that significant coverage is unlikely to really exist. Undoubtedly a remnant of more existence-based inclusion standards (despite the lack of connection to, or not being, notability) that had not been shaken off in this topic area in 2012. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illawarra Junction

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

This article has been unsourced since 2007. As far as I can tell, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, so this article does not meet WP:GNG. Steelkamp (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are 60 000 results for "Illawarra Junction" on newspaperarchive.com so someone may want to take a closer look for significant coverage on newspaper archives. Most coverage is from the early-to-mid 1900s. C F A 💬 04:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing quite a few hits in Google books. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've today added several references to the lead; and moved the tag of unreferenced to the main body/section of the article, where there are no references. Whilst Google search has revealed many entries, they're not directly connected with the content that appears to be partially original research. Rangasyd (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Chang-ho

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can only find coverage about the head of North Korea's Reconnaissance General Bureau. C F A 💬 04:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024 Tel Aviv suicide bombing

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Advocating for a merge into Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (13 July 2024 – present). Aydo h8^[contribs] 03:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Israel. Aydo h8^[contribs] 03:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, though this type of non-deletion discussion should generally be held elsewhere. C F A 💬 04:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (13 July 2024 – present) you only need a sentence there, so doesn't really need a merge. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Govvy, not much to say except that it happened. Also noting that the original creator of the page was not extended-confirmed to begin with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media Five Entertainment

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

Trash article WP:NCORP Polygnotus (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Management, and Pennsylvania. C F A 💬 03:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are major issues with the content, but judging based on notability alone there is nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Even a search of Google Books only found mentions which are likely just ads placed by the company looking for clients. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon books

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

This list is very much an INDISCRIMINATE failure. None of the books listed in this article have an article, meaning they fail NLIST, and there are no sources discussing Pokémon books in a significant context outside of the fact they exist, meaning there is no valid spin-out rationale. There is additionally no inclusion criteria on these books, meaning anything can fly (Ranging from guidebooks to anime episode adaptations to original fiction to quite literally anything) and given the sheer scope of books published under this franchise, it is almost certainly impossible to actually improve this list given the indiscriminate scope, lack of notability in any context, and overall lack of use this list provides as a result. This is frankly a case where I feel a deletion is a better alternative here given the amount of failures on several fronts this list provides with no viable AtD alternative. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem like it passes WP:LISTN - this is probably better off on Bulbapedia than Wikipedia, which also has full articles about each book. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Antònia Mínguez

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

Suggest redirect to List of FC Barcelona Femení players. None of the sources in the article focus on the subject specifically (fails WP:SIGCOV), just as one member of a team. The team was notable, and several individual members are independently notable – but Mínguez does not appear to be one of them. I feel like WP:SPORTBASIC applies without needing to consider the weight of a potential role in women's history, as the sources that do mention her as part of the team, don't suggest she had any greater role than simply being part of the team.

Furthermore, parts of the article that are about the team and their historic first match, appear to be copy-pasted from other articles about notable teammates (e.g. Lolita Ortiz), while the paragraph about the 50th anniversary of the match appears to be close paraphrasing – if not direct machine-translated copyvio – of the source (a primary source that is the main source used in the article, too). All in all, there is more focus on the match and the team and passing mentions that Mínguez was involved. Not sufficient for an article. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Spain. C F A 💬 03:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. @Kingsif: It is behind a paywall, but this 2021 article in El Periódico is focused on Maria Antònia Minguez and Sandra Paños gets it over the line for me. There are also other articles cited in Catalan Wikipedia worth checking out. Looks like not enough WP:BEFORE. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've read that source, Mínguez and Paños discuss how Mínguez joined the club (ad in newspaper) and then just about how the environment of women's football has changed. It's not about her or her career, it's just including her in a story of how Barça Femení grew from where it started to be in the Champions League. And probably only including her because the current player they got to take part was the goalkeeper. As for the Catalan WP article, it has fewer sources and they're just some of the same. Trust me, I've done BEFORE.
Like, this isn't to say Mínguez was not important for the team, but that she does not meet Wikipedia notability standards as she is only ever mentioned in sources in relation to "DYK Barça Femení was founded in 1970 and she was the goalie". Especially when that is all we can say of her notability, we should likewise keep our coverage in relation to the 1970 Barça Femení team. Other players from that team were much more actively involved in e.g. management and promotion, and are more worthy BIO/BLP candidates, but that does not mean every player warrants their own (largely copy-and-paste of the generic team details) bio. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, unless better sourcing can be found. Giant Snowman 14:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following additional sources, probably gets over the line now. Giant Snowman 16:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're (hopefully) not source-counting when they're all the same content... Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I probably would like to see more in-depth sourcing, but what's there is okay for me. I don't see anything wrong with the article. Govvy (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Expanded the article to include more about her early life and family and the influence of goalkeeper coach Antoni Ramallets. Added more coverage including a 2021 article featuring Mínguez on SER 100 following her SER Catalunya television interview, plus a 2022 article in El Diario featuring Mínguez and two other former players. Plus the 2021 article mentioned earlier in El Periodico. Surely this is enough to satisfy WP:BASIC, and arguably even WP:GNG. Pinging GiantSnowman. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the article to include more about her early life and family - please see WP:PSEUDO for this part. Padding out a BLP with personal details isn't demonstrating a subject's notability and we have to prioritise privacy if there is any doubt. Your expansion includes exactly one sentence about her football career, the rest is about her private life.

The Cadena SER article is a good 40% not about Mínguez, but about Barça and how women's footballers were treated in 1970. The parts about Mínguez are largely quotes from Mínguez herself (see SPORTBASIC) that are saying the same things as before, about that first match. I.e. she's not being interviewed about her career because SER considers her a great player, she's being interviewed to talk about the 1970 match and women's football back then. (And most likely, she's being interviewed because she's suitable and available, not because of anything she did as a player to set her apart.) Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further conversation. While a majority of participants are arguing for a Keep, the nominator still has concerns that warrant a few more days of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect She's WP:BLP1E and should be redirected to List of FC Barcelona Femení players. She doesn't meet GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

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

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Lists, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are reliably documented, and the list is too long to be in one article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOT. This isn't a valid keep argument and doesn't address the concern that this essentially just a massive database copy/dump. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:COPYVIO I have to agree with Fram: making an inferior copy of someone else's database is really not within our purview. There's probably some WP:NOT guideline covering that aspect, but the fact that it is a copy of only some of the fields doesn't ameliorate that it is a comprehensive copy of every entry. And without that copying there's really nothing here, as it is the sole source for it would appear well over 90% of the entries. I have to think that it's not possible to source this otherwise without repeating the other author's original research. I wouldn't have a problem with the obviously much smaller list of surviving mills, for which the copied database could be used as a source for certain information. But in this case we are just stealing someone else's work, even if we aren't stealing all of it and that theft was not the intent. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I contest the claim of copyvio. As for the one source claim, the DHM database itself draws on many sources. Thus the lists draw on many sources too. For info, the Dutch Wikipedia lists cover all windmills, though they have split by existing and "vanished" mills. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but even though I agree with not retaining a copy of the database, facts aren't copyrightable, only the presentation of those facts. Still though, what's essentially a copy is still essentially a copy, and not something we should be hosting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs further discussion and contribution from other editors to reach a clear consensus. Would encourage editors to consider neutral notices at neutral venues to seek further input, if they feel it is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it meets WP:NLIST it still goes against what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. A list of every single windmill in the Netherlands that is just a copy of a database is not within the scope of the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems to me this is a valid yet excessively detailed list that fails WP:NOTDB on its face but is also a valid list, so I'm not really sure what to suggest here. It definitely needs an edit, but it doesn't need to be deleted entirely. A quick translated search shows over 1,000 articles in Dutch related to both Friesland and windmills, so it's definitely not a random topic. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus. And to the IP commenting, an AFD can't close a discussion with an order to edit the article in a certain way as editing is a volunteer activity. And it's not the closer's responsibility to carry out participants' wishes with editing choices. There are a limited number of possible outcomes from an AFD discussion, Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasoning of Traumnovelle. The individual windmills aren't notable, so WP:NLIST applies. The group isn't notable, so these lists are out of scope. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government High School Dinpur

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

No evidence of notability. Can't find any sources that even mention it. Previously rejected at AfC but was moved to mainspace. Seems to be a strange attempt to promote "Ahsan Ali Web Designer". C F A 💬 02:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Pakistan. C F A 💬 02:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable educational institution with no independent RS providing even some WP:TRIVIALMENTION. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:11, 23 August 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]

1940–41 Primera Fuerza season

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

Only very minimal content inside the article and has no inline citations. The one and only source ([19]) is by the RSSSF, which collects statistics of every football result. Due to it lacking coverage in sources, it fails WP:GNG. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am curious why you picked this season page out of all of them from 1902-03 to 1942-43. Technically there is nothing wrong with the article, it shows a historical table of what was then called an amateur league. However I believe the league did have good coverage in Mexican media. There maybe room for improvement, but in it's current form, I would combined all the league tables into one or maybe two articles. But historically, this league is part of the history of football in Mexico. So... also, how much WP:BEFORE did you do? I guess the coverage would be different in the 1940s due to WW2 and the political situation, so my bet is it's all about the offline sources anyway. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These tables are irrelevant anyway. It can’t be that significant if it’s getting 19 views per month either. All these seasonal articles should really be redirected to Primera Fuerza or deleted because there is barely anything in them in terms on content, which is why I picked this one because it has less content than the others, as well as barely any coverage. Azarctic (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primera Fuerza - possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

40 year structural inspections

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

This is an obscure inspection requirement only relevant to two counties in Florida. A deletion of this page and move of some content to the existing "Building inspection" page would be my preference to address this problem. Cheers. SSR07 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Likely too technical for wikipedia; could be covered in an article about the Florida building codes I suppose, but that's getting even more technical. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Engineering, and Florida. C F A 💬 04:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Surfside condominium collapse#Legislation and Florida Building Code which seem to be the closest parent topics. Section 553.899, which is cited in the article, is part of the Code (alias the Florida Building Codes Act). There is significant coverage, in Google Books, of the Code and construction and building law and inspection generally in Florida. No topic is "too technical". If we merge content to another article, we have to keep the page history, to comply with WP:CWW. James500 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]