Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 15	September 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Kurka

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2021. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, sourcing used in the article is database listings, which don't help. I can't find much else, she seems to be a podcast host [1] and [2], bu they don't talk about her. I don't see enough sourcing for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Grimes2 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she has not sung with any notable choral groups. She has not toured extensively. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Also, no major recordings. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Online searches turn up nothing that confirms notability. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Pearse

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

I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources for this muay thai fighter, but I'm not confident I know where to look, either. Here's two links that might help someone else: [3]; [4]. asilvering (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Thailand. asilvering (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some details to his biography and cited some articles from: ^[1] GaryFightRecord (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, doesnt meet criteria for WP:NKICK. Nswix (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was interesting search and showed how things have changed. Time was it was very difficult (well nigh impossible) to find sources on Muay Thai fighters. I found a number of articles on Pearse, but most of them are TikTok, youtube, and instagram. Fight results and upcoming fight announcements are easy to find, but it's still difficult to find significant coverage from sources I know are both reliable and independent. He comes close to meeting WP:NKICK. The WMC ranks him as the #11 contender in his weight class (hence #12 overall) and he recently lost to the Rajadamnern champion in a non-title bout. Neither the sources I found nor the ones mentioned in the article convince me that WP:GNG is met. Historically, organizational ratings are sometimes suspect--it's hard to believe he's so highly ranked in the world when he's only ranked #8 at Rajadamnern. I'd say it appears to be WP:TOOSOON, but I'm not voting right now in the hope that better sources can be provided. Papaursa (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nobody has provided any additional sources showing WP:GNG or WP:BIO is met, so I'm voting to delete this article. I hope someone will let me know if additional sources are found. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably WP:TOOSOON. Subject doesn't meet WP:NKICK and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of urban areas in Scotland

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

Unreferenced (sources are mentioned but not cited anywhere) and is essentially an unnecessary spin-off of List of towns and cities in Scotland by population, using same methodology as the Settlements list (the figures differ slightly due to taking the figures from different years). De-prodded by editor who possibly didn't realise that the above article contains sections for both Localities and multi-locality Settlements, i.e urban areas. Crowsus (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Scotland. Crowsus (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK probably merge with List of towns and cities in Scotland by population#Settlements, I indeed hadn't noticed that section. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but for the purposes of consensus also support merge. This is just an incomplete, slightly outdated, and poorly referenced duplicate of the towns and cities page, so I don’t see what needs to be merged. Maybe the definition section, which consists mostly of (unreferenced) quotes? Toadspike [Talk] 07:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any reason to merge this. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pontic uprising

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

source articles are very clearly biased and take a strongly ethnonationalist point of view, denigrating pontic greeks and armenians while glorifying the turks. I am additionally not certain of the notability of this event. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure this seems to be a real event and not a Turkish invention. It's mentioned in greek and other non-turkish sources too: [5][6] But these are just passing mentions and if there aren't enough in depth quality sources to write a good article, then it should be a delete/redirect. However, I didn't search for sources in Greek so I cannot vote delete. (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cites given for support by UK and France are all Turkish cites. However as the events were more than a century ago it would not be secret any more in UK (not sure about France) and there ought to be stuff available in UK archives. So whoever wants to keep the article could have a look in for example https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C77635. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the veracity of the event remains very questionable without some diverse WP:BESTSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything from period French newspapers [7] for a "revolt" or "grecs pontiques", so I don't think we have much for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tried "Pontic uprising" and "Pontic Greek uprising" in the LOC newspapers [8] and still nothing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mother Teresa#Legacy and depictions in popular culture. I see consensus that this topic is worthy of an article, but that this is not that article. Given the call for WP:TNT, a full merge seems unwarranted, but anyone looking to merge some (not all!) of this content back into the main article should feel free to do so and/or discuss specific parts on the talk page. asilvering (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Mother Teresa

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mother Teresa

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

Started as a WP:POVFORK [9] and since then it has changed quite a bit but it never really improved. This article is not about her public image, which is overwhelmingly positive, (and not a notable topic which does not pass WP:GNG), it is about certain criticisms of her. For some reason the article got moved [10]. Criticism should be in the main article and this POVFORK should be removed. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, India, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm COI on this because 1.) a family friend ran some of Mother Teresa's US PR stuff and 2.) Mother Teresa holds special, positive importance in a private element of my life. However, I'm of the opinion that this article, while possibly a bit OR-heavy, strikes me as generally neutral and notable. I can elaborate, but I feel my COI precludes me from seriously inserting myself any further here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: COI users are allowed to have an opinion (even those who disagree with me

). See WP:COIEDIT and WP:COIADVICE. Do you know any reliable sources that are about her public image and not her as a person? Do you think it is a good idea that all criticism was removed from the article about her and moved to this, far more obscure, article? And that, possibly as a result of the move from Criticism of... to Public image of..., the criticism got hidden even further down the page? Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement to discussion! Perusing JSTOR, I'm finding some pieces like this. Generally, they come from the late 1990s and are heaving on the sociology (not necessarily bad, especially in a subjective subject). I have objections over centering criticisms like Hitchens's on her biographical article—one of a few significant marks against his legacy—but generally agree that we need to exercise caution in any diminishment of sustained and impactful criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see how some people are overly cautious with anything approaching COI while others... are not. ;-) Of course, the criticism comes not just from Hitchens. People like Aroup Chatterjee and Tariq Ali and Mihir Bose and even people who worked for her like Hemley Gonzalez and Susan Shields et cetera have famously criticized her work. There are a lot of very important people who said very positive things about her; let's be fair and balance that out with some of the criticism. MLK jr got a criticism section. You can probably write a criticism section for Ghandi. I am quoting myself, and when I wrote that the Mother Teresa article still had a criticism section. No matter what happens here, the criticism will return anyway. It never left, despite attempts to hide it. Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critics say grossly inadequate medical care was given to the sick and dying. Syringes were reused without sterilisation, pain relief was non-existent or negligible, and conditions were unhygienic. Meanwhile, Mother Teresa spent much of her time travelling around the world in a private plane to meet political leaders. -- The Guardian. Polygnotus (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:SIZESPLIT, over 9000 words means "Probably should be divided or trimmed". The main article currently got only 5000 words. I flipped it around. If it would be fair then that shouldn't matter, right? But it does cause it isn't.

Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of the spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.' Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet from 1990 to 1995. PMID: 7818649 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92353-1 Polygnotus (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: I still feel too COI to formally !vote, but you've convinced me. I now favor deletion. Thanks for your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was previously nominated for deletion on August 2023. The article's current title came as a result of that discussion. I was the one who removed the criticism section but I retained the criticism against her since it would be a violation of NPOV to remove it. You do not need such a section to include criticism about a person. The NPOV policy discourages such sections anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or merge - clear WP:POVFORK, and the lack of criticism in the main article is now notable by its absence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether it is better to Delete this article or Merge some content back into the main article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mother Teresa#Legacy and depictions in popular culture — Maile (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the topic itself is notable, having found multiple academic sources attesting the notability of the subject's public image, such as in popular discourse or media culture. A selection of examples follow:
- Arvind Rajagopal, "Celebrity and the Politics of Charity: Memories of a Missionary Departed" (Routledge, 1999)
- Gëzim Alpion, Mother Teresa: Saint or Celebrity? (Routledge, 2006), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203087510
- Daniel T. Kline, "Digital Hagiography: Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, and Medieval Women in Cyberspace", College Literature 28, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 92–117, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25112585
- Gaston Roberge, "Mother Teresa, Abortion, and the Media" (Routledge, 2011)
- Gëzim Alpion, "Why Are Modern Spiritual Icons Absent in Celebrity Studies? The Role of Intermediaries in Enhancing Mother Teresa's Advocacy in India and Australia Prior to the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize", Celebrity Studies 11, no. 2 (2020): 221–236, https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2019.1567366

The difficulty, of course, is that the current version of the article is not based on this literature. Instead it's a mashup of some stuff about legacy like the sainthood plus specific criticisms. I suppose there might be a case the article warrants WP:TNT, since its content is so disconnected from the literature relevant to the article's purported topic per its title (Saint or Celebrity is cited once; the rest not at all) that it'd require substantial cleanup. I'm not presently making that case, but I'd be open to hearing it from another. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrangeans: Thank you, we could probably use those sources to write a section on the main article, and if there is really a lot of content that could get split. But the current article in its current form is not a good starting point to write such an article imo, so it seems like WP:TNT is the best option. Can we put those sources in a {{refideas}} template on the talkpage of the main article? Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to main article, per Bastun. John (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Yacht Squadron members

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. Might be WP:A3 eligible. Conyo14 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like before it was removed, the list was mostly sourced from this unsourced (random?) list of supposed members of the squadron. cyberdog958^Talk 20:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the full content (ie, before it was disruptively removed, eg [11]), to Royal Yacht Squadron. Each individual item on the list should be checked to see if their inclusion is supported by the content of their own biographical articles, but there's no reason to delete this list and no reason to remove the list of names wholesale without checking individual ones. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, a random sampling of half a dozen members (those that have actual articles) shows none of them even mention the RYS. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing that there is enough for a standalone article, but it might be appropriate to have a notable members section in the main article. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Bachelor (American TV series) season 2. czar 11:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Buerge

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

Notable for only being the main bachelor of The Bachelor (American TV series) season 2, the target that the nominated page should be redirected to. (The Bachelor (American TV series) is an alternative, but I prefer just season-specific.) His activities outside the series don't measure up to make WP:BIO1E (if not WP:BLP1E) inapplicable. Furthermore, the second season of The Bachelor may not have been a major event as it is perceived or marketed to be, despite good or decent viewership. If the cited rules don't apply, how about WP:PAGEDECIDE instead? George Ho (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Missouri. George Ho (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment – In case of no further input, WP:BIODELETE should apply, whatever the outcome shall be. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, yep notable for one thing. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to where? Possibly The Bachelor wouldn't work here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about The Bachelor (American TV series) season 2, where he was the main character of the season? —George Ho (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the nomination. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Being a manager/participant of a TV show/series doesn't show notability, hence redirect to The Bachelor (American TV series) season 2 per ATD. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TayJay

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

No notable tag team. Just 16 sources: 8 of them, WP:RESULTS, the others didn't mention the team, just individual accomplishments. There are not enough reliable sources focusing on the team to prove notability. It's just an alliance between wrestlers. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Gems of the Galaxy Zoos. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CGCG 396-2

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be kept. It was notable enough for HST to observe it, being voted by Galaxy Zoo users. "Following a public vote, a selection of the most astronomically intriguing objects from the Galaxy Zoo were selected for follow-up observations with Hubble. CGCG 396-2 is one such object, and was captured in this image by Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys." ^[2] Phantomdj (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Fight Record | Muay Thai News, Videos, Events and Results". Fight Record. 2024-09-10. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ HST page for this object

Keep per Phantomdj ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid the Hubble site is the only source that has some non trivial commentary on the object. Don't think it is enough. --C messier (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gems of the Galaxy Zoos, where it has a sentence. There is a very brief mention in the Gems of the Galaxy Zoos paper,[12] and articles associated with a news release about the photo. But I think there's not enough to establish notability by itself. Awesome image though. Praemonitus (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even less of a consensus. I'll try one more relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gems of the Galaxy Zoos: per WP:NASTRO. Sir MemeGod  15:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Praemonitus. Although it looks pretty, this clearly fails NASTRO. Toadspike [Talk] 07:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Réjane Magloire

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSICIAN. Couldn't find any significant coverage or chart listings. C F A 💬 23:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and New York. C F A 💬 23:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure about this one. The current stub focuses on her acting as a supporting role in a film that lacks its own article (although it could be notable - Denzel Washington played opposite her. Can we hear from the relevant projects? Can someone please tag or list them? Bearian (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC) I vaguely recall this film, Wilma, because it was so terrible, like cult-status bad. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. She had three charting singles and an album in multiple countries. I found a lot online. I’m not sure how deep the nom searched, or if they asked any Gen X person, or if they looked into stage and band names. Her acting career was marginally notable, but her musical career was big stuff. Even Mariah Carey covered one of her songs. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find any coverage of her in the BNF Gallica [13], Gbooks or anywhere else. Gsearch is only where to stream her music. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Small notice in Billboard [14], the tiny photo in the box down near the bottom right, talking about royalties owing... That's all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This singer likely meets WP:SINGER criterion 2. There are now several sources in the article showing that the album Body to Body (Technotronic album) charted in several countries, which makes it and the band notable. Further pages from chart websites show that the lead single, featuring Reggie, also charted [15]. Although not properly cited in this article, the Chart section of Last Night a D.J. Saved My Life shows that this single, which also featured Reggie, charted in several countries. One could argue that singers don’t inherit notability from music they made in a band, but I think two notable songs featuring her, from two separate bands, one of which is part of a clearly notable album to which she contributed, is enough to establish notability.

As a side note, it is not true that her music can only be streamed from a “Gsearch” – I found both the Techtronic album and the Indeep song on Apple Music. Toadspike [Talk] 08:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, that's not how that works. WP:NMUSICIAN specificially says: Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. There is no individual notability here. C F A 💬 14:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not voting keep as I haven't looked into sources here, but I think even if she isn't notable independently of the bands she was in, there's a reasonable case for having an article on her in the same way that we tend to decide to have articles on authors who have written multiple notable books. Better to keep discussion of her somewhere centralized rather than sprinkling it through other related articles. -- asilvering (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Police Officers (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, no WP:SIGCOV anywhere, no critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to List of Kannada films of 2022~~: see article talk page -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. 2 strong sources, the second of which is very long [16]. The film had an alternative title of Police Officer. @Mushy Yank: @Vanderwaalforces: What do you think of the second source, which mentions box office? Did you do a WP:BEFORE? DareshMohan (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had looked vaguely at the time of the discussion but I’ll change my !vote. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the review presented and coverage about production, there’s enough all in all to keep an article, I think. Very opposed to deletion anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 3 sources on the page. Source 1 by rediff is not a review. It talks about the film based on real life crime and the first half of the article is about the actual crime that took place and the second half of the article are claims/interview of the maker of the film, making the source not independent of the maker. Source 2 talks about the actual incident and just has a passing mention that the maker based his film on this actual incident. Source 3 is just a music site to listen to the songs. No significant coverage on the film itself from secondary independent sources. No multiple critical reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. If anyone can find 2 or more secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage on just the film itself, I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found a similar source about another one of the director's films, which is unreleased [17]. DareshMohan (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to LGBT history in Poland. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT in Poland

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

Redirect to LGBT history in Poland per wp:2DABS following Israel case, unless categories count? See also these redirect and RM discussions. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Disambiguations, and Poland. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LGBT rights in Poland. Sampling other countries for "LGBT in [country]", they always seem to redirect to the respective country's "LGBT rights in [country]" article. The See also section can/will take care of the history aspect, if the article body doesn't. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I prefer the redirect target of LGBT history in Poland, as it is closer to a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article and matches the Israel precedent. If sgeureka wants to provide the redirects they sampled, I am open to changing my mind, but it seems to me that the redirect targets are not consistent and depend on the what articles the country has. Either way, the target needs a redirect-for hatnote. I have added a link to the Rights article to the lead of the History one, and a For hatnote to the History article on the Rights one, so both choices are now okay as redirect targets. Toadspike [Talk] 08:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh Suvarna

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

Non-notable person, lacking WP:SIGCOV outside specialist poker websites. Does not appear to have won any notable, major tournaments. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Games, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nagaland Post and the APN News are definately independant non-specialized sources. sportskeeda is specialized in sports but not specificially poker. PsychoticIncall (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Neves (poker player)

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

Non-notable person, lacking WP:SIGCOV outside specialist poker websites. Does not appear to have won any notable, major tournaments. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Alon9393 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from some experienced editors here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep. Granted there's not much WP:SIGCOV, but two million-dollar cashes, including a win in a big WSOP event (8703 entrants = notable major tournament), are nothing to sneeze at. Otherwise, redirect to 2024 World Series of Poker. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has won a notable major tournament. PsychoticIncall (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RX J2129.7+0005 BCG

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find an arXiv paper, so there's at least some coverage.[18] The SIMBAD coverage is for RX J2129.7+0005. It doesn't appear eligible for a redirect to List of galaxy groups and clusters. Praemonitus (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see the irrelevance of the topic, it is also cited with reliable references--Alon9393 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've removed all the text from the article that just came from catalog papers or papers unrelated to the object. There's nothing left. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NASTRO and an unfortunate lack of individual coverage. Sir MemeGod  18:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A flawed article with no significant coverage on the object thus falling all guidelines for WP:NASTCRIT. Galaxybeing (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Withdrawn by nominator Valereee (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Görner

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

Sourcing issues tagged since 2019. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a brief look: she has articles in several Wikipedias, and several links in English come from other articles, because she made many recordings, at least one in a title role. Looks clearly notable to me. We should retain this article not to break the links, and improve it. I will look in two days. Please notify projects opera, WiR and Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look: we talk about a living person of 94 years, with an entry in GSL (cited here). I changed my mind, will work on this top priority after sleeping. I encourage you to withdraw the deletion attempt and the tag bombing, - imagining that she might read her article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I removed the tags: notability seems clearly established with a leading role in a film and many other recordings, also a world premiere at a notable house. The biography is sourced now, just the recordings sections needs a few more refs and details. Expanding would be most welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an operatic soprano, therefore project opera should also be notified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now in an acceptable condition. Grimes2 (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing per WP:HEY. Thank you to Grimes2 and Gerda for major article improvements.4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charalambos Xanthos

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Games, Cyprus, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all I can find [19] and it's hardly enough. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – Subject does not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Withdrawn by nominator Valereee (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Dierkes

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

BLP article built entirely from the website of the subject's employer. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a brief look - too tired for more close to midnight. The article (five years old) has more sources in German, and even in English more possible sources are available in the external links. Will look closer tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While rather at the beginning of her career, she has appeared internationally. There are now more references, and more facts and more references to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glyndebourne Festival, Bavarian State Opera and ensemble member at Staatsoper Stuttgart. She is notable. Grimes2 (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing per WP:HEY. The article has been vastly improved by Gerda and Grimes2.4meter4 (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn; speedy keep‎. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Benjamin Faraas

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

No WP:SIGCOV (just match results and stats pages) and thus no pass of WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT. Given his career stage, open to draftify as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Norway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. I do have access to the paywalled articles. The sources regard a wide variety of aspects with this player: career highlights, ups and downs, personal life etc. Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per local-language sources identified by Geschichte. Keep Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tanjay#Education. asilvering (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Villaflores College

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

I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV of this college to meet WP:GNG (much less WP:NORG. The sources in the article are affiliated sources, directories, blogs, etc., and a WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing qualifying. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. While I understand the concerns regarding WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, I believe there is potential to expand the article with more independent, reliable sources to meet these notability guidelines. The current sources may indeed include affiliated or directory-based content, but this does not negate the possibility of finding significant coverage through further research. I am committed to addressing this by seeking out local news archives, academic references, or governmental publications that cover the institution's contributions to education or its impact in the community. If you're open to it, I would appreciate additional time to improve the article, ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia's notability standards before any final decision is made. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rc ramz Do you prefer for the article to be turned into a draft so you'll have more time to work on it? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tanjay#Education per WP:ATD. I only got one good reference in a 1979 newspaper article during my search and it focuses more on the Villaflores rather than the college. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanjay#Education: Per Lenticel, the only things which convinced notability are unsourced and not related to the article. Due to the 277 views in the article, I suggest redirecting the article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, no objection to a redirect as suggested. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melony Munro

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

There is no available WP:SIGCOV of this beauty pageant contestant. Munro's name appears in WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the winner of the competitions, but without SIGCOV there's a failure on WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. (Miss International Queen USA itself appears non-notable and as such winning it does not constitute a WP:ANYBIO #3 pass.) I don't see a plausible redirect since Munro has been a third-place contestant in different contests, but open to a suggestion should anyone have one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Beauty pageants, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:NBASIC. ANYBIO is not applicable. C F A 💬 02:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per in-depth nomination, my BEFORE does not add any sources to make a suitable claim of notability. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding anything here which would lead to this subject meeting the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is also failed per Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants), which is still not notable enough for that article. Apipattana (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. asilvering (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lawrence Schieffelin

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

There is virtually no independent secondary coverage of this individual. The sources in the article (and in the WP:BEFORE search) are primarily primary-source documents, except for a book by one of the subject's family members (who is also the self-declared COI creator of this article and a whole WP:WALLEDGARDEN of articles about his family members). The other book source is published by an imprint of unreliable WP:ARCADIA Press. Without [WP:SIGCOV]] independent, secondary sources, this subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only claim to notability I can discern is that he was president of the Board of Aldermen. There are plenty of primary documents that mention him as an alderman. There are some secondary documents that mention him on archive.org, but in the context of geneology of Jacob's family rather than as an alderman. But nothing lengthy that I could find. Note that there is also a different person named Georrge Richard Scheiffelin. Oblivy (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiziana Scandaletti

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

Completely unreferenced BLP. Not clear it passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only bring up streaming sites and operating database listings. All we have are primary sources now in the article, nothing found for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Online searches turn up nothing that establish subject's notability. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems like there is a lot of close paraphrasing of text from the subject's website when run through google translate into English; enough so that I think it could be a copyright violation issue.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. Lorne Weil

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are passing mentions, paid for profiles and interviews. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. My first thought was, "...and???". He's rich, he has a family, he got an education. He rose up the corporate ladder. Having the right connections can accomplish that much. But what did he actually do? — Maile (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, England, Canada, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete $8 million? That's it? State lotto winners are more notable and richer than this literal WP:MILLionaire, and the only drama in his life seems to be being bought out of his position by Ron Perelman, which at this point is just as MILL. Add to that the source to his wealth is a standard disqualified and unsourced 'net worth made up' website. Nate • (chatter) 23:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fail WP:GNG, there are not enough reference to show their notability Tesleemah 20:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. asilvering (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amarilli Nizza

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2015. Sources are all self published blogs or dead links to self published theatre websites. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irzen Hawer

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. asilvering (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Macrì

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2017. Uses unreliable sources like instagram. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. asilvering (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Gonzalez

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2008. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence she passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. No qualifying sources found in a search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. asilvering (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Bertez

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

No indication of significance. Reference are routine coverage of business operations. No secondary sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Finance, Economics, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hairshirt environmentalism

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

Dicdef expanded into an essay, poorly sourced; fails WP:N — The Anome (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be copied from the Virgin Design Page source, with no other verification. The USA Today page is no longer accessible. Not listed at all in Wiktionary. The creating editor only made one other edit, and it was not related to this subject. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend a regular delete and not speedy delete, as it could be rolled back, and so a copyvio averted. Regular delete vote here is more definitive than a speedy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for advice - changed to regular Delete — Maile (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a neologism that hasn't really caught on, should be captured as a neologism. Sadads (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mirpur Upazila. asilvering (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amla Sadarpur Secondary School

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

Well-established but ultimately non-notable school. None of the sources cited contribute anything towards notability, and a BEFORE search finds nothing more than the usual social media accounts, directory listings, etc. (If someone can find non-English sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard, please do.) Declined at AfC but published by the author regardless, so here we are. Clearly fails WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to Add Citations - Hmm, I will try to see if there is anything that can be done. I will try to look for citations that makes proof that the school is notable. Many more might participate, if this page is seen by more, If there are not any citations or proof of notability, there is possibly a reason for deletion. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any citations that give clear proof that school has notability, English or Non-English. Keep might be a option. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, did you find any citations? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mirpur Upazila where the school is located. The cited sources are not independent (ashs.edu.bd, board), are directory listings (Amla Union, Bangladesh Technical Education Board), or are passing mentions (Desh Tottoh, Samakal, and Bangla Vision News). Searches online and offline, in English and Bengali, of independent reliable sources, returned nothing better. The deepest coverage was a single sentence about the school in a 1976 gazetteer, which doesn't amount to significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL, so should not be a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Keep !voters have been unable to rebut the sourcing concerns brought by delete !voters. asilvering (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wayshak

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

The article and a WP:BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources for this comic artist -- just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Thus the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO; the subject also meets no criterion of WP:NARTIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Comics and animation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing vandalism from blocked user Kellpb93ke (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the deletion of Daniel Morcombe which did get undeleted. Kellpb93ke (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC) — Kellpb93ke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What has this got to do with Morcombe? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellpb93ke What does Daniel Morcombe have to do with Jonathan Wayshak? Did you mean to comment on a different discussion? Unless this comment was posted mistakenly, there is no actual rationale offered to keep the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Poorly referenced. --Altenmann >talk 17:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jonathan Wayshak is a primary subject in the MTV News, Juxtapoz, and Fangoria, and more cited in the article. He has illustrated posters for Beetlejuice, and comics for DC, Halo, etc. Hexatekin (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same sources?
- The MTV source is a WP:INTERVIEW and as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE cannot contribute to notability.
- The Juxtapoz source has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Wayshak's name.
- Fangoria has a single paragraph discussing a poster Wayshak illustrated, most of it consisting of a quote from Wayshak.
None of these are WP:SIGCOV to qualify toward notability. And it's a complete red herring to say "he has illustrated posters...and comics." That doesn't establish notability at all. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per source analysis below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20230317204837/https://www.mtv.com/news/ae6ax8/sam-kieth-and-jonathan-wayshak-make-the-chickens-revolt-interview	Promotional site for MTV		interview	✘ No
https://gizmodo.com/indie-artist-interviews-new-york-comic-con-artist-alley-1849640204/4			interview	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240822030049/https://www.circusposterus.com/blog/juxtapoz-teases-us-with-their-annual-halloween-issue/			blog posting about Halloween issue of Juxtapoz. No mention of other publications	✘ No
https://www.thewrap.com/godzilla-x-kong-mondo-toys-poster-reveal/			passing metion of poster	✘ No
https://www.fangoria.com/mondo-beetlejuice-wayshak/			site selling poster	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220527121739/https://hifructose.com/2015/08/24/inside-the-sketchbook-of-comic-artist-jonathan-wayshak/	?	?	multple images	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20240416070823/https://www.dc.com/comics/the-ferryman-2008/the-ferryman-1			promo listing for Ferryman #1	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240416081838/https://www.dc.com/comics/the-ferryman-2008/the-ferryman-2			promo listing for Ferryman #2	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20210224042407/https://www.darkhorse.com/Blog/2353/dark-horse-comics-deploys-justin-jordan-call-duty			promo listing for Call of Duty: Zombies #1	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240809132706/https://hifructose.com/2010/09/07/hi-fructose-collected-edition-vol-2/	?	?	Promo for Hi-Fructose Collected Edition Vol. 2	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240817205952/https://www.harvard.com/book/zerofriends_a_collection_of_art_passion_and_madness/			listing for Zerofriends at Harvard Booksotore	✘ No
https://www.thewrap.com/godzilla-x-kong-mondo-toys-poster-reveal/			A single WP:TRIVIALMENTION: "We are also super thrilled to debut a new timed edition poster by artist and illustrator Jonathan Wayshak, also for “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.” The 24” by 36” screen-printed poster is a striking black-and-white tableau featuring Godzilla and Kong battling the movie’s villain the Skar King, a ferocious ape from deep within Hollow Earth. The poster will go for $80. See it below."	✘ No
https://www.shelfabuse.com/comic-book-reviews/toner-5-comic-book-review/		ShelfAbuse is self-published by Carl Doherty (see WP:SPS). (https://www.shelfabuse.com/about/)		✘ No
https://www.popculturemaven.com/comics/new-comic-book-reviews-week-of-12016/			Review of Devolution issue 1; not WP:SIGCOV of subject	✘ No
https://theslingsandarrows.com/call-of-duty-zombies/			Review of Call of Duty: Zombies; not SIGCOV of subject. Review does not mention Wayshak's work.	✘ No
https://theslingsandarrows.com/devolution/			Review of Devolution issue 1; not WP:SIGCOV of subject	✘ No
https://www.youdontreadcomics.com/comics/2021/7/28/the-scumbag-9-review			Review of The Scumbag issue 9; not WP:SIGCOV of subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

KEEP: Wayshak is well-known in the comic book/graphic novel world. I have added reviews from a number of sources within that world, which I would suggest indicates some notability. Guinness323 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sources to the assessment table above. They don't show WP:SIGCOV, except for sources that fail the test of independence or reliability. The closest they get is a claim of notability under WP:NARTIST, but that's only if you interpret a single comic book issue with two reviews as "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." While the guideline does not describe comic books, it does generally exclude notability for individual works that are serial installments of a longer series (e.g. a TV show episode) and applying that principle to comic books would exclude this principle here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources added by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the save goes to Guinness323. Not a field I excel in but if the artist is well-known within it then notability becomes evident. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has improved with the new sources; was there really a WP:BEFORE? Tduk (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tduk, indeed there was. Read the source table. The sources added to the article do not support notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the source analysis above and a BEFORE search. It is WP:TOOSOON for this artist, perhaps in a few more years there will be enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are fully independent of the subject to support an encyclopedia article. Being "well known" or having career success or "fame" is not the same as encyclopedic notability; this is not a reflection on the artist or their work, but simply a reality of WP's guidelines that have been crafted through consensus over a period of years. The article fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG at this time. Netherzone (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis appears to favor delete. The keep !voters need to remember that it is not a vote and would be advised to respond objectively and factually to source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the source analysis, there aren't any reliable, independent sources with enough WP:SIGCOV to favour an article at the moment. I agree it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but for the time being, the article fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. DesiMoore (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of unofficial Mario media. asilvering (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario War

AfDs for this article:

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

poorly sourced fail WP:GNG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of unofficial Mario media. Failed to get much significant coverage besides maybe this review, though it's enough to merit a mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't pass WP:N without better sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of unofficial Mario media per ZXCVBNM. Does not individually pass WP:SIGCOV, but has just enough mentions in secondary sources to warrant a mention. Masskito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. asilvering (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Daolio

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

Tagged for BLP sources since 2011. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. 4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Participants provided sources suggesting the subject meets GNG and those sources were not disputed during the discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nipun Roy Chowdhury

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

No inherent notability. Subject fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. BEFORE wasn't helpful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of coverage, so WP:GNG should be fine. See for example [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Oh, there are TV clips as well: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], etc etc. --Soman (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom is correct that she does not meet WP:NPOL, but as Soman has demonstrated, frequent coverage of her "fiery speeches and run ins with the police" over the past six years does meet WP:GNG, even if the present state of the article doesn't reflect that. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. asilvering (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Fresh

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are annoucements,profiles and interviews. scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, and California. – The Grid (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#France. asilvering (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gustave Ducousso

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

Another football biography fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT with no WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary reliable sources. The only sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or database directories like Olympedia. He fails WP:NOLYMPIC as a substitute for a team that did not apparently medal. I propose either to delete or to redirect to Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads as was done earlier this year before being reverted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Olympics, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#France as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. asilvering (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Battistelli

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

Cited exclusively to either unreliable sources like sound cloud, or to websites of companies which have employed the subject and are self published in addition to lacking independence. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I get hits on are review of this performance [50], which aren't enough for notability here. What's now used for sourcing in the article is primary or simple confirmation of performances given. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ethiopia. – The Grid (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#France. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bottini

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

Football biography fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT with no WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary reliable sources. The only sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or database directories like this one. He fails WP:NOLYMPIC as a substitute for a team that did not apparently medal. I propose either to delete or to redirect to Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads as was done earlier this year before being reverted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Olympics, and France. – The Grid (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#France as possible search term.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Not draftified, as there is no indication that the subject is likely to become notable in the near future. asilvering (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debangshu Bhattacharya

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

No inherent notability here. Subject fails WP:NPOL, and I've checked the cited sources, none could satisfy WP:GNG criteria. The regular WP:ROTM sources we get during election periods. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Sohom Datta: who reviewed and @Toweli: who previously redirected to Trinamool Congress said that the accepted version was better improved than that of earlier version before redirected.--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. The subject is not a major political figure and has not held international, national, or state/province–wide office. Subject was a contestant from West Bengal representing All India Trinamool Congress political party in Lok Sabha Elections 2024 from Tamluk and lost. RangersRus (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:THREE, If you kindly read its talk page that I provided certain sources that may pass WP:SIRS, following which the draft was accepted. Not always it is necessary to pass per NPOL case. I can even explain further if requested. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 18:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the talk page, Source 2 is from NDTV News Desk with no byline, probably a routine article. Source 7 and 4 are not independent. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I advise to draftify the page for now. Any new development will take place persisting to GNG criteria, that it seems fit for. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and RangersRus. Searching in English and Bengali (দেবাংশু ভট্টাচার্য), I can find only routine coverage of him as a candidate, not the sort of significant coverage as a politician that would meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Over the past week there's been a gossipy story in the Bengali press about him supposedly insulting someone online, but that's WP:BLP1E at best. I oppose draftifying in this case, since he last ran for office seven months ago, and isn't on the cusp of getting elected. If he does win an election, then WP:REFUND can be used to recover any content worth including in the new article. Wikishovel (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald K. Hoeflin

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable pseudoscientist, does not meet WP:GNG. No WP:SUSTAINED WP:INDEPTH WP:DIVERSE coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Polygnotus (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Philosophy, and Georgia (U.S. state). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Polygnotus (talk)
Source	Comments
Morris, Scot. "The one-in-a-million I.Q. test". Omni magazine, April 1985, pp 128-132.	Not about Hoeflin. Also clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT because it says This test is "the result of almost two years of collaboration between Hoeflin and Omni.
Republic Magazine, November 1985, "Beyond Mensa," by Catherine Seipp	An inflight magazine
Carlson, Roger D. (1991). "The Mega Test". In Keyser, Daniel; Sweetland, Richard (eds.). Test Critiques. Vol. VIII. Kansas City (MO): Test Corporation of America. pp. 431–435. ISBN 0-89079-254-2. ISSN 1553-9121. Although the approach that Hoeflin takes is interesting, inventive, intellectually stimulating, and internally consistent, it violates many good psychometric principles by overinterpreting the weak data of a self-selected sample.
"Mind Games: the hardest IQ test you'll ever love suffering through", Omni magazine, pp 90 ff, April 1990	Not about Hoeflin. Also clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT because it says This test is "the result of almost two years of collaboration between Hoeflin and Omni.
Prizes and Awards (American Philosophical Association	https://www.apaonline.org/page/jvi awarded for the best unpublished, article-length work in philosophy by a non-academically affiliated philosopher.
Proceedings, "News from the National Office". Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 62, No. 4. (Mar., 1989), pp. 691.
"Ronald K. Hoeflin". geni_family_tree. 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2024-08-14.	WP:USERGENERATED
Hoeflin, Ronald. "About the Author." Noesis, Issue #176 February 2005.	This is a "magazine"/newsletter published by megasociety so not WP:INDEPENDENT
"Encyclopedia of Categories [Volume 1-13]". USIA: United Sigma Intelligence Association. 2020-11-17. Retrieved 2021-05-09.	Written and published by Hoeflin
Aviv, Rachel (2006-08-02). "The Intelligencer". Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2007-02-11. Retrieved 2006-08-02. This article is primarily a biography of and interview with Dr Hoeflin
Knight, Sam (2009-04-10). "Is a high IQ a burden as much as a blessing?". Financial Times (London). Retrieved 2006-04-20. This article has a section which contains a biography of and interview with Dr Hoeflin	Made me feel sorry for him. But it certainly does not make him notable.
Perleth, Christoph; Schatz, Tanja; Mönks, Franz J. (2000). "Early Identification of High Ability". In Heller, Kurt A.; Mönks, Franz J.; Sternberg, Robert J.; et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Pergamon. p. 301. ISBN 978-0-08-043796-5. norm tables that provide you with such extreme values are constructed on the basis of random extrapolation and smoothing but not on the basis of empirical data of representative samples.	Does not mention Hoeflin
Hoeflin, Ronald (July 1987). "About the Editor" (PDF). Noesis, the Journal of the Noetic Society. 16: 11. I have been a member of all six high-IQ societies listed in the Encyclopedia of Associations: Mensa, Intertel, the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, the Triple Nine Society, the Prometheus Society, and the Mega Society — but I currently belong to only three of these: Mensa, Triple Nine, and Prometheus. I am the founder of Prometheus and of the Noetic Society (formerly called the Titan Society). I consider myself the founder of the Mega Society, although some argue that Chris Harding has at least equal claim to that status. I am also a co-founder of the Triple Nine Society. Thus, I have been at least partly responsible for the establishment of four of the seven currently active high-IQ societies.	This is a "magazine"/newsletter published by megasociety so not WP:INDEPENDENT
Sager, Mike (November 1999). "The Smartest Man in America". Esquire. Retrieved 2011-01-07.	[51] Human-interest story. I feel sorry for him after reading this. But it does not make him notable.
Membership Committee (1999). "1998/99 Membership Committee Report". Prometheus Society. Archived from the original on 2006-07-17. Retrieved 2006-07-26. `{{cite journal}}`: Cite journal requires `\|journal=` (help)	Founded by Hoeflin
A Short (and Bloody) History of the High I.Q. Societies Archived 2013-09-22 at the Wayback Machine	Not about Hoeflin specifically but about the Societies. Not an RS.

Keep. I was prepared to be convinced by the source analysis, but the profiles in the Financial Times, the Village Voice and Esquire go well beyond human-interest stories to constitute WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources, and thus a clear pass of WP:GNG. Cleanup is obviously needed to clear out user-generated and other unreliable sources, but WP:DINC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very sad that neurodiverse people were and are often abused for human interest filler. Unfortunately he had no one to protect him. Luckily recently there is a bit of awareness growing that humans are not zoo animals. I am always confused that people think that GNG is as easy as 1-2-3. Who made that up? Polygnotus (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly are you suggesting abused or is abusing Hoeflin? And how is this a helpful comment in the context of a discussion based on P&Gs? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Dclemens1971: bios in FT, VV, and Esquire are more than enough for GNG. (also coverage [even if critical] in Test Critiques suggesting that his work was read) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs)
Keep but parts of the article don't feel like NPOV to me. Epa101 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 23:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikte Pryneid Hansen

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

No inherent notability, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Nothing useful came from WP:BEFORE. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Norway. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Internal party apparatchiks are rarely notable enough to meet WP:NPOL. From a brief perusal of the Red Party (Norway) article, the Secretary General of the party is not the front-facing leader, nor does it look like an internally elected position (though I may be wrong on the latter point). Bkissin (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to New Series Adventures#Tenth Doctor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of India

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

Fails WP:NBOOK tagged for notability since Januray of last year. One unreliable review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and India. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, I noticed the same thing, was gonna AfD myself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures#Tenth Doctor. Mr Sitcom (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Malabar Institute of Technology

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

This exists, but even the very stubby article doesn't prove it. Its own website server fails to respond. Not inherently notable. Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Kerala. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Back in 2015 the creating editor twice removed a {{merge to}} template, refusing to discuss it. I am not averse to a merge if deemed appropriate 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kannur University. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and increase to a stub article. Win-win ending. Kellpb93ke (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC) — Kellpb93ke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What does "win win ending" mean here? LibStar (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a vandalism-only account so their comment should be disregarded. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Institute have no individual sources fails WP:NCORP. Xegma(talk) 17:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIGCOV; fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I would oppose a redirect as suggested above on WP:V grounds, since the Kannur University website does not indicate that the "Institute of Technology" affiliated to it is this one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Uttar Pradesh train derailment

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

WP:NOTNEWS, title is ambiguous as there are other (albeit non notable) derailment incidents in the state, including a recent one just hours ago. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it for now, need to add more sources. Xegma(talk) 16:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify is the best course of action. Definitely needs more sources. - Amigao (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CalDigit

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

Does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for companies. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Checking in Google News, there are hundreds (20 pages of links) of independent appearances in media. Still, it's true they are mostly reviews of their products, not talking about the company itself. The company consumer products have been pretty popular, but maybe that fame is not enough. Tbh I'm not sure. Janeender (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find sales sites for their products (Amazon, etc.) and one product review of one product, but nothing about the company itself. Lamona (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there really should be substantive company-focused coverage, not just product reviews. - Amigao (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing does not meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Act to confronting the hostile actions of the Zionist regime against peace and security

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

The article could simply fit into a section at Iran-Israel relations. Several primary sources, including Parliament and at least two others, are no longer functioning. Only sources focusing on Iran are available. The article mainly consists of quotes from the law. EpicAdventurer (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, and Israel. EpicAdventurer (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability and entirely lacking WP:DIVERSE sources. - Amigao (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Whitney Nakayima

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:BIO or General Notability Moarnighar (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all notability guidelines. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Agbogu

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

Disputed AfC submission. This subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO by all means. The milestone "Tony Elumelu Entrepreneur" does not inherently confer notability as over a hundred could be in a year. The source analysis below will give you further insight. I also suspect WP:UPE and WP:COI going on.

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Vanderwaalforces**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2024/04/25/lagos-partners-naija-brand-chick-for-hospitality-trade-fair/	We can't be sure of WP:INDEPENDENT when there's no byline in the first place.	While publication is reliable per WP:NGRS, the piece is unreliable because we can't rely on a piece without a byline.	Utterly no, this is more or less a routine coverage.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/guardian-woman/metrowoman-entrepreneur-of-the-week-nelly-agbogu/	This is an interview.	Ditto.		✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq89nLdKp4U	Fails WP:INDEPENDENT.	Whether some will say TED, the publisher of this video, is reliable or YouTube is an unreliable source, this is unreliable still because it involves the appearance of the subject.	Ditto.	✘ No
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/05/africa/nelly-agbogu-naijbrandchick-intl-cmd/index.html	Reading this piece makes it clear that it is not entirely independent of the subject. The phrase "Courtesy Nelly Agbogu" at the end suggests that she is the source of this information, implying that either she provided it directly or the information is being shared with her permission or acknowledgment.	While the publication is reliable, we can't rely on a piece that fails WP:INDEPENDENCE.	Does not provide the WP:SIGCOV on the subject that we need on Wikipedia.	✘ No
https://thesun.ng/naijabrandchick-offers-game-changing-program-to-help-online-business-owners-dominate-sales-and-influence/	Reading this makes it clear that it fails WP:INDEPENDENT. The piece lacks a byline.	Reliable publication per WP:NGRS but the piece lacks a byline and we can't rely on such, especially when it fails WP:INDEPENDENT.	This isn't about the subject.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/over-200-exhibitors-expected-at-tourism-fair/	Unassessed because it does not even apply to the subject at all.	Ditto, and lacks a proper byline while looking like a WP:ROTM.	Ditto, and there is no WP:SIGCOV on the subject either.	✘ No
https://www.tonyelumelufoundation.org/marketing-materials/meet-the-selected-1000-tony-elumelu-entrepreneurs-for-2017	This is not a source or piece used to establish notability in the first place.	Ditto.	Ditto.	? Unknown
https://twmagazine.net/tw-tv/tw-everyday/women-love-nelly-agbogu/	Piece is an interview, thus failing WP:INDEPENDENT.	Ditto.		✘ No
https://www.globalbrandsmagazine.com/how-nelly-agbogu-is-transforming-nigerian-entrepreneurship/	Piece lacks a byline and reading it makes it clear that it is not entirely independent of the subject.	We can't rely on a piece that lacks a byline, plus the publication itself is not reliable because it looks like a part of a news PR system.	Piece does not provide the WP:SIGCOV we need.	✘ No
https://archive.businessday.ng/enterpreneur/article/nelly-agbogus-biggest-challenge-birthed-business-journey/	Piece is an interview, thus failing WP:INDEPENDENT.	Ditto.		✘ No
https://www.cnbcafrica.com/2017/business-of-healthy-living-in-nigeria/	Fails WP:INDEPENDENT as an interview.	Ditto, even though the publication is a reliable one.	Ditto.	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/06/lagos-govt-naija-brand-chick-continue-to-build-economy-through-tourism/amp/	If this is entirely legitimate, I wonder why it would lack a byline.	No byline, marginally reliable per WP:NGRS.	WP:ROTM or routine coverage.	✘ No
Citation 13: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/06/07/naijabrandchicks-dsi-programme-empowering-women-to-transform-industries/ , Citation 15: https://dailytimesng.com/four-reasons-to-attend-lagos-tourism-nbc-tradefair-nelly/ , Citation 16: https://lagosstate.gov.ng/lasg-reiterates-continuous-support-for-smes-as-lagos-tourism-nbc-3-day-trade-fair-ends/ , Citation 18: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/07/wema-bank-nbc-smedan-to-hold-inter-continental-trade-empower-women/amp/ , Citation 20: https://msmeafricaonline.com/wema-bank-and-smedan-collaborate-to-empower-women-led-msmes-through-naija-brand-chick-trade-fair/ , Citations 21 all through 24.	All these sources are unassessed because they cannot be used to establish a proton of notability on the subject.	Ditto.	Ditto.	? Unknown
Citation 14: https://businessday.ng/sponsored/article/naijabrandchicks-dsi-program-transforms-women-entrepreneurs-into-industry-leaders/ , Citation 19: https://businessday.ng/sponsored/article/fez-delivery-is-the-official-delivery-partner-at-nbc-african-fair-london-2024/	Sponsored pieces.	Ditto.	Ditto.	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/06/participants-laud-6th-naija-brand-chick-trade-fair/amp/	Lacks byline as usual, ditto.	Ditto.	Fails WP:SIGCOV.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The assessment table created by the nom seems to disregard every source. My use of sources is based onWP:NGRS ensuring that the subject passes WP:GNG. I am even more surprised to see the assessment of CNN and TedX. Marking all the notable newspapers Vanguard, Punch, The Sun etc as unreliable makes me wonder what Nigerian Editors can then use for referencing. Also, kindly look at his talk page to see how our conversations based on his accusation prior to this went (I can’t seem to link to it). I will not vote a keep but would prefer other neutral editors to look into this objectively and vote accordingly. Mevoelo (talk) Mevoelo
Delete: I have confirmed the source analysis table independently and before reading it. I suggest the be a soft delete - without prejudice to future re-creation - because I sense that Nelly Agbogu approaches WP:BIO despite not quite being there, certainly as referenced. A major rewrite and re-referencing at this stage will change my mind, provided the WP:HEY is done sufficiently well. This means that unreferenced so called facts must be removed, and faux references must go, along with the facts they purport to verify. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for the thorough source analysis, which I concur with, and according to which notability is indeed not established. I get the impression of someone who is 'famous for being famous', which probably at least in part explains the WP:REFBOMBING with flaky sources. Fails WP:GNG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The referencing is also rather lacking: I checked out a few of the sources, and the first one (#1) did not verify the DOB against which it is cited; the second (#7) is cited at the end of the 'Biography' and verifies only the very last, and arguably the least significant, statement in that section, with the educational history completely unsupported; and the third (#8) does verify that she worked for Schlumberger, but not what role she held. Which begs the question, if all those details didn't come from the sources cited against them, where did they come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source from which got the DOB is here, although it appears I ended up not adding it to the reference list. For the role she held, I cannot specifically state which of the sources but it was part of the info I got while researching. If I’m not mistaken, it was stated on her TedEx Talk. Mevoelo (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails to meet notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources.Mysecretgarden (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails GNG with a tone of promotional. I wonder why the creator had to move it to mainspace after being warned--Gabriel (……?) 19:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are mainly routine news. She wasn’t listed as the top 20 entrepreneur by Yahoo Finance; rather by CAPHIQ—an advertising agency that distributed the listicle through GlobeNewswire. No other source seems to be substantial. Best, Reading of Beans 07:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject was a nominee for an award and has substantial reliable independent references to meet WP:Notable. Tesleemah 08:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Schwarz

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this previously unreferenced article about a composer, and added one reference. It is a passing mention, however, and I cannot find other coverage. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NCOMPOSER. Tacyarg (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Television, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Before search returned nothing. Fails WP:GNG or WP:Nmusic. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, additional web-search didn't help. But the person is non-notable as a musician too. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Breakbeat

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

No WP:SIGCOV, does not satisfy WP:GNG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - Further material to be added by PatisOne, draftifying is more appropriate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi as discussed in our earlier chat, I know the article is an initial start with a larger draft that I am preparing regarding historic origins, its cultural reach that had U.S. regional presence and had a large digital footprint that can be found in internet archives. PatisOne (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of intercity bus stops in Arkansas

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

Fails WP:LISTN WP:NOTTRAVEL. For the same reasons as per South Dakota, this is a list of unremarkable, non notable bus stops in a particular state. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because similarly as the reasons above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Transportation, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost a travel catalogue. Orientls (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NLIST. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ after history merging. ✗plicit 11:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Sant

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. (I would draftify, but a draft already exists - which can be incubated until the subject is ready for mainspace). Paul W (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Send to draft space, possibly notable in the future, but not seeing it at the moment. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A draft already exists, Govvy - hence the AfD here. Paul W (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This version is better, histmerge this one to draft and SALT until it's in good state. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. NB that article creator has a long history of creating articles in mainspace that are already in draft... Giant Snowman 19:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SI-UK

AfDs for this article:

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like WP:ADMASQ, but even if it didn't, there is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS as required for WP:NCORP. Instead, we have a lot of WP:TRADES coverage and WP:ORGTRIV that doesn't contribute to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was not able to find anything relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainers Cricket League

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The creator of these articles, who have had 94% per cent of their articles deleted, really need their WP:COMPETENCE questioned. AA (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here- just because some people playing are borderline notable, that doesn't make the tournament itself notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Vischjager

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Games, and Netherlands. toweli (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls a bit short of the GNG. I found the following sources:

(data only, not for GNG) Innet Ernrooth: Met 120.000 Franse franken wandelde hij opgewekt het casino uit. "De Telegraaf". Amsterdam, 23-07-1983, p. 50. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 17-09-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:011205682:mpeg21:p050

(counts toward GNG) Koen de Vries: "Wereldkampioen haalt finale niet in Vlissingen" https://krantenbankzeeland.nl/issue/pzc/2007-01-08/edition/null/page/36. Krantenbank Zeeland. Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant | 2007 | 8 januari 2007 | pagina 36

I found plenty of passing mentions, especially on Google Books. If someone finds more SIGCOV, let me know! gidonb (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Serfaty

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

Not notable as an actress or a living person. The editing spirit (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a lot (I do mean a lot) of coverage mostly on her private life in more or less reliable sources (from Globo and People to, say, Page Six and Pure People or US Weekly) but not on a short period of time (2014-now, at least). Some people receive significant coverage because they create a vaccine, some for their private life. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The South China Morning Post article is fine, this is also coverage [52]. Source 7 is also a RS per source highlighter. Not super extensive, but it's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b and Mushy Yank. SCMP, Elle, Vanity Fair articles are directly about her. Further we can expand using German Wikipedia article. Freriks (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 03:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lister Storm GTM002

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

Non-notable vehicle chassi, information is out of scope of Wikipedia. However, having a hard time figuring out where would be an appropriate rederict/merge -- the race team? Sadads (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Baffling to find an article about such a specific, unspecial chassis - not even a model! Don't see any encyclopaedic value in it. No mainspace links to it exist ([53]). Think a suitable redirect target would be Lister Storm or Lister Storm#GT, but we've got to consider deleting it altogether. MSport1005 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any notable content brought to Lister Storm. I do not even see the need for a redirect. Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadush Danaj

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are profile and no significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 07:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I honestly have no idea what the coverage is like in Albania and for the clubs he played for, there are two in the list that are a fair size and get good support. If someone does build a decent article with sources ping me please. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and thus no pass of WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV and there is no indication of notability. The Albanian league has always been very weak. JTtheOG (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Firefly Aerospace. as consensus is there isn't enough independent sourcing for an article. Protect the redirect should it be needed. Star Mississippi 00:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda (engine)

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

Article on a rocket engine under development which has no proven notability as it does not yet exist. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. As part of WP:NPP it was draftified for improvement, for instance waiting until it has proven to be viable. Novice editor removed tags, moved back to main and made comments that violate politeness code. This article and approach is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Since the editor has rejected draftification, deletion now is the approach. If the motor ever works and becomes useful, then and only then would it be appropriate for Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Spaceflight. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., this page used to be a redirect to a short description in the Firefly Aerospace page. Within that page it can be OK; however creating a new article by replacing a redirect must pass the same bar as the creation of any new page. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep Unlike a lot of these fledgling companies, that end up promising a lot of vaporware, this case is likely different. This engine has the backing of Northrop Grumman, which needs it to power its Antares rocket, which it needs to lift the Cygnus spacecraft into space to resupply the International Space Station per the terms of its Commercial Resupply Services contract witch NASA. So there’s a lot riding on this program, which all adds to its notability. Furthermore, if this engine program fails, that itself may be notable if it ends the entire Antares rocket program. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you make interesting points, I think keeping the article would also contradict Wikipedia:NOTACRYSTALBALL (I.e. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) since the engine is still a prototype. Let's see other opinions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and try this at BE-4 or Raptor pages first as a precedent... KroOoOze (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a poor comparison as the BE-4 and Raptor have both flown and this engine has not. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On test\certification flights. Raptor 3 have not flown at all. In either case we rely on official informations from the companies, and things like Isp is fundamentally impossible to independently verify, and we cannot be sure with what specs they will ultimately end up with (and that is ok). Invoking CRYSTALBALL is frivolous and agaist the spirit\intention of the guideline. KroOoOze (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: but fine. What about New Glenn or Artemis II articles? By this twisted logic, should they be deleted? KroOoOze (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, however I’ll point out that this engine has completed several hot fire tests, that were shared by Northrop Grumman. So in my opinion, it’s not entirely correct to point to WP:CRYSTALBALL. This isn’t just a product announcement or rumors when they actually have a working product and a deadline to deliver that’s just months away at this point. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many problems, but reference information being readily available ain't one of them. With consideration to how this frivolous demand was brought up, I suggest to summarily dismiss this and not waste any more of anyone's time. Whether this is inlined and put under another pointless redirection is a distinction without difference to normal people. So if anyone wants to waste his time doing this, whatever. But don't deny access to the users in the process by (soft or hard) deleting it.

|

The engine was test-fired, so it has more than sufficient physicality. People expect to find all this basic information here. I don't think there is precedent, and purging all development engines from Wikipedia is, on the face of it, bizzare idea. The template itself has a state available for whether the engine is in development or in any other stage; i.e. it is normal and expected there would be articles about engines in development.

|

The petitioner out of the blue tried to draftify the article, with complete disregard for any links to it. He tried do draftify it despite it existing more than 90 days (years in fact). Now it is clear the motivation was as a prelude to deletion. In this discussion several frivolous reasons for deletion are thrown around simply trying to see what sticks, while concern over what actually most benefits the users is not considered. Any large rocket engine is very much "notable" to people in the field as well as fans, regardless whether currently in development or not. One could claim Too_soon with maybe some concept that will be renamed two more times and doesn't have anything but the name in the first place, but hardly this engine at this stage. KroOoOze (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not provide incorrect information. As I clarified, the earlier page was a {{redirect}}. If it was a real page then it was not eligible for draftification. However, it was a new page and as such goes through the standard Wikipedia:New pages patrol process.

Please note the Wikipedia:Five pillars "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" Ldm1954 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is to say keep. It is self-evidently WP:N to anyone even vaguely interested in this area. And to others, reporting on it do exist confirming notability per WP:NPOSSIBLE. Deletion cannot be considered a serious suggestion; as it would leave Wikipedia in worse state than before. It is a WP:RECKLESS suggestion. As for merging, rocket engines of this class are typically (and should be) in standalone article, and do not require context of another article. KroOoOze (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood the policies you've linked. Nothing is self-evidently notable on Wikipedia: unless it falls under the purview of a WP:SNG, a topic is only notable when it meets the requirements of WP:GNG by having received sustained, in depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. WP:NPOSSIBLE is about poor quality articles that can easily be improved because they have received WP:SIGCOV that is not already included in the article - by my count, I could only find one reliable source not already included in the Miranda article, and the amount of detailed information presented in all the sources I could access was minimal. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 12:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did. You are refering to guidelines as "policies". Anyway. MSM coverage is a proxy for notability, not a goal unto itself. I did claim it is self-evident to me and reasonably any spaceflight fan, as much as gravity is self-evident to any planet dweller. To others, the evidence that people "noticed" this engine is a thing is that these articles do exist. Second-hand sources do not always improve an article. KroOoOze (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Firefly Aerospace per WP:NSUSTAINED, WP:FUTURE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:NOTPROMO, etc etc. While a few reliable sources have briefly covered the testing of this engine, it fails WP:GNG - there is not yet enough detailed coverage to warrant a standalone article. I think this is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. This engine may well become independently notable in the future, but currently, there simply is not enough coverage to provide all but the most basic information on it. Until further SIGCOV appears, this seems better handled as a subsection of the Firefly Aerospace article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have arguments to Delete, Merge and one editor Leaning Keep so there is no consensus here yet. We determine notability on Wikipedia not based on editors' opinions but by coverage by reliable, secondary independent sources. Could anyone provide a further source assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis: There are 5 sources. 1, 2, 5 are all web articles by the manufacturer, so are not independent and (IMO) weak. Both sources 3 & 4 are from specialized science web news sites, and mainly repeat statements by the two companies, so are also weak on independence; there are no comments from independent experts. They are not from, for instance, a major national or international newspaper, and there is no comment from NASA, JPL etc experts. I do not consider that the current article has any reliable, secondary and independent sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the source listed in the article currently, I found the following:

Two press releases[54][55]
A paywalled article in Aviation Week [56], a reputable publication
A few short articles on niche aerospace news websites[57][58][59] of unclear reliability/independence, and one particularly shameful article[60] that just reads like an ad

Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While SpaceNews isn’t a household name, Jeff Faust has become quite respected among the small cadre of full-time space journalists. He’s also probably the only one with a PhD from MIT. I’d argue he’s a reliable source.

While I don’t recognize the name of the journalist from Space.com, the site does have the green check of approval as a reliable source for Wikipedia.

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as I see that it yet lacks enough notability (see WP:TOOSOON). It would be okay to merge with Firefly Aerospace. As of right now, I see that it only has the notability of the Reaver (engine) of fiefly space or the Aeon engine of relativity space, both of which don't have their own articles. Even if one deems the thing notable, they should first create an article on Firefly's MLV vehicle. Pygos (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree with you, however, in this case, this engine will first fly on the Antares (rocket), scheduled in less than a year from now, long before the MLV is ready. The Antares, of course, has a long established page. RickyCourtney (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, given that this engine doesn't appear to meet GNG on its own, perhaps a merge with Antares (rocket) would be more appropriate? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 12:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this discussion boils down to the issue of how current Wikipedia should be. The issue is whether an engine being developed should be a redirect to a section in the page of the relevant company, as it was prior to July 22, 2024, or a page in its own right (post July 22, 2024). If an engine for space, land or anything else has really unique features such that even testing it is a breakthrough (verified by multiple sources) then it merits a page where these are detailed. Without this I don't see why an exception should be made. In particular I will ask What Is The Rush? If the engine becomes a roaring success then change the redirect to a page, otherwise let's be patient and wait. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. If you are interested moving this article, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Dublin

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

Based on primary sources. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ireland, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and improve. Rather than delete. While it is likely true that the embassy (the office/building/institution/whatever) doesn't have independent notability, there is plenty of coverage of Ireland-Ukraine relations generally. So, personally, I'd suggest that the article be increased in scope slightly. And moved to Ukraine–Ireland relations. Similar to Ireland–Russia relations. Or Spain–Ukraine relations. Or others. With a redirect left behind. If that's "too much", the title should (at the very least) be retargeted to List of diplomatic missions of Ukraine. Personally don't think that outright deletion is the best approach here. Guliolopez (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Ireland-Ukraine relations are a notable topic, which is quite possibly true, then an article on that subject can easily be created. AusLondonder (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. There is already, on a second review, a title on the subject. At Ireland–Ukraine relations. So we wouldn't need to create an (additional) article on that subject. We'd just need to merge/redirect the content (on the embassy - which effectively covers foreign relations as a whole anyway) to the existing title. Personally I think that's the best course of action. Rather than deleting (and then effectively recreating) the content/topic/title. Guliolopez (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but concurring with the "move and improve" of User:Guliolopez - consider creating Ukraine-Ireland relations and move this into there with more on the relations rather than the embassy. I did find this from the Kyiv Post - it's part 2 so presumably part 1 also has useful info. And I assume that Dublin newspapers will also cover the topic. That seems much more important than the embassy. Lamona (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge if salvageable Andre🚐 18:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. There is a redirect at Ireland-Ukraine relations so there would have to be a different target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move as suggested and fix the links and redirects. The relations between the two countries became important only in 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move per Bearian. Spleodrach (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Phogat

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Women, Television, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources, including BBC and The Hindu, and bylined articles in other media, indicating her notability as social media personality, politician, or related to her death. She meets the requirements, in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Goa. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Wikipedia platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank.Thanks Mushy Yank for his opinion.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – news coverage appears to be only connected to her death. As tragic as that event was, WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:BLP1E applies. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding the same as bonadea. Here is something more recent that mentions her, but again in the context of her death and without significant biographical coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that there is limited coverage of her in the context of her striking another politician with a shoe (example), which is also not very useful for WP:GNG, and some routine election coverage (example). So while I think it's plausible that there is solid biographical coverage out there, I don't think we've found it yet. If anyone can turn up an obituary (rather than an article about the circumstances of her death) that might give us something to go on. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just from a quick search, appears across all major news media in country, both regarding death and various controversies. --Soman (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 22:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PGC 2387685

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the interacting companion galaxy, SDSS J161330.18+510335.5, has at least one paper published.[61] Praemonitus (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinch to Punch

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

This lacks WP:SIGCOV even the article knows it limited information has surfaced online. Oricon yield no result, Natalie yield no result, even the Japanese article has one source, the only thing I could find that is RS is from the Media Arts Database Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this related articles with the same reason as above

Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep) and improve with sources from the Japanese WP, that has a lot considering it's a 1969-1970 series! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and Transportation. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(My initial !vote above is about Zen-chan Tsū-chan). I hadn't seen this was a bundled nom when I !voted through the assisted script. Procedural keep. These series have very little in common. And it's hard to discuss and improve the 3 at the same time without long tedious explanations and comments about what precisely is relevant to each case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC) (The nominator indicates they nominated the pages "with the same reason" but the 2nd article has >10 references to reliable newspapers on JaWP, for example.)[reply]
I'll just seperate the 2nd one. Thanks for pointing out Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mention of ’the 2nd article’ is unclear: for the record, I mean Zen-chan Tsū-chan. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to the respective networks should also be considered.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I would like to see some way to keep the content, and suggest a merge to Fuji Television.~~ For the ones which are made by Fuji, which doesn't include Zen-chan (please, please, don't do combined nominations of disparate articles!). Not sure about Zen-chan, as like @Mushy Yank this came up as a single article for me and I hadn't given it any thought before starting this comment
On Pinch to Punch it's unfortunate that there is so little secondary material out there although it seems even the primary material has been lost. This attests to its importance in the context of the development of Anime. This article could be perfectly happy as a stub, verified by what little information is out there~~, but it's hard to make a case for IAR on this.~~
Keep based on the anime encyclopedia entry and the existence of multiple shorter sources in the en. article and in the jp. article. Although the encyclopedia is the only lengthy treatment found, the article subject is clearly a launching point in the history of Japanese anime. The article is verifiable and the project benefits (and has little to lose) from these stub articles. Since this is basically an IAR argument, I've struck my inconsistent comment above. I still wouldn't object to a merge as a backup. Oblivy (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with developing these articles would be our inability to access archives which would have information about an anime series from 50 years ago. Hard to imagine that Pinch and Punch, a series with 156 episodes airing on a national TV channel, wouldn't be notable with access to the correct archives. If someone is interested, perhaps Fuji or the National Film Archive of Japan can help? I would personally either keep or merge the articles at a minimum. DCsansei (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus here. But I don't see any support for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes lack of WP:SIGCOV.

Note - maximum sources are databases. and it's an enough reason to delete. Xegma(talk) 13:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not true. References to Japanese newspapers of the time on the JA WP page. See my comments above, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's multi-paragraph coverage in this book at 634, less extensive at 132, 146, and 268. Oblivy (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Power sector of Andhra Pradesh. Star Mississippi 00:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 06:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant organization, state-owned power distributor having vast network and consumer base. Google search reflects a lot of sources showing the kind of significance the org. holds. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no valid sources. Please identify them for us. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, presumably into a "regional operations" section. Dan • ✉ 15:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a totally unrelated company? Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited is a power generation company owned by Andhra Pradesh state government, the Andhra Pradesh state government owns lots of companies.

The Power Generation Corporation generates and supplies power to not only this distribution company but it supplies power to whole Power Grid of India. So according to me it doesn't make sense to merge two separate companies just because they sound same or owned by same owner. They are literally DIFFERENT COMPANIES. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikizoomer: If you don't stop WP:BLUDGEONing every comment that made has been made on this, I will take you to WP:ANI. scope_creep^Talk 16:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears like a personal attack, accusing other users of doing something that they are not and within accordance with Wikipedia policies is personal attack. I can take you to WP:ANI and instead of threatening, you can directly take it there. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep FYI... Thewikizoomer is a politically exposed editor, presumably hired or paid by the current Government of Andhra Pradesh. Their edit history is quite openly visible. It looks like taking the ANI route is the only viable option. Charlie (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It states here: [62] that the electricity generators were deregulated in 1999. The main monolithic supplier APSEB was split into a grid supplier and the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited. The regional generator were split off from this organisation into regional supplier. They are all owned by Andhra Pradesh government. Even though they are seperate companies, they can be one article, because all companies are owned by one entity. scope_creep^Talk 16:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10s of companies are owned by Andhra Pradesh state government, it is still unfair and doesn't make sense to merge, just because they are owned by the same party. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same comment as the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Similar to another AfD discussion... Independently, this company doesn't qualify for its own Wikipedia page as it doesn't meet the WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. A merger is also not feasible since it isn't a direct subsidiary of APPGCL. Charlie (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references cited independently cover the subject (this article), could you elaborate on the unsatisfying criteria as you mentioned so this can be cleared

Refs. covering subject independently:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/apepdcl-in-visakhapatnam-registers-record-energy-consumption-of-over-92-million-units-on-april-17/article66770369.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/apepdcl-en-route-to-providing-24-hour-three-phase-power-supply-to-117-lakh-rural-households-by-2025/article68233086.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/apepdcl-takes-the-smart-route-to-reduce-evasion-of-bills-by-government-offices/article68513158.ece

https://www.apeasternpower.com/companyInformation

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/southern-states/andhra-pradesh/600-member-apepdcl-team-to-restore-vijayawada-power-1821221

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/apepdcl-bags-two-national-awards-for-power-performance-881729

https://web.archive.org/web/20180310201040/https://www.apeasternpower.com/epdcl/EPDCL_Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=EPDCL_Home_portal_page_156_page_157_page_158

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/new-cmd-of-apepdcl-assumes-charge-in-visakhapatnam/article66752592.ece Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewikizoomer I have noticed your actions on the NTPC Power Plant pages I created as per WP:NBUILDING rule. This seems to be driven by a sense of vengeance. Unlike you, I have no personal stake in whether these pages remain, get merged, or are deleted. However, your conduct goes against the core principles of Wikipedia editing. It appears you have been hired or paid by the current Andhra Pradesh government, as you have been consistently trying to delete pages related to the previous administration and updating those pages of those subjects which are managed by the current adminstration. I don't need to deep dive much as you are exposing yourself through your actions. It's time for you to be honest. Charlie (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't respond to personal attacks and this is not a place for that either. Nor do I have any personal stake on what page remains, gets merged, gets deleted, gets featured, gets GA tag, etc. The "driven by sense of vengeance" is a flat statement that came out of clear misunderstanding.

I don't know whether if you are the creator of the any of the articles that I have nominated for merger. I use twinkle tool to notify the user that has created the article of any actions that are taking place. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I have proposed a lot of mergers in Wikipedia and I am active in doing them. Regarding the NTPC Power Plant articles, I'm following the list of projects mentioned in the NTPC Limited article. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Power sector of Andhra Pradesh as suggested by Nate over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited. The sources added to this article are WP:ORGTRIV, and this company fails WP:NCORP on its own. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Dclemens as these companies are just divided by districts and don't do anything different other than manage their assigned district; if this was a regular business we would probably merge under the same grounds. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Gotham Awards#Gotham TV Awards. Closed and redirected per consensus, with relevant parts merged into the main page. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham TV Award for Outstanding Performance in a Drama Series

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

It's hard to decide if I will draftify this article but this feels like it's too soon to have the a standalone article. The award and the 1st edition of the award itself is notable but this specific category as of now, seems no notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this article for the same reason:

Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SPLITLIST or redirect to the main page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gotham Awards#Gotham TV Awards for now; assuming that the next ceremony includes these categories, these lists would no longer copy information from a single article and could be recreated then. I would also support redirecting Gotham TV Award for Outstanding Performance in a Comedy Series for the same reasons. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has source but need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a point in Gotham Awards - an awards ceremony existing is unfamiliar in policy to myself, but wait to have an article until 3 or 4 ceremonies have taken place. BarntToust (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gotham Awards#Gotham TV Awards per WP:TOOSOON. A merger can be done individually. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Enos

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

No clear indication of notability. Being the first president of the National Teachers Association isn't enough. No significant coverage in cited sources. Before search found nothing significant. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Iowa. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, Iowa, New York, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone looked in the possible book sources? Bearian (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded it from another source. The nominator's comment "Being the first president of the National Teachers Association isn't enough" seems to suggest that WP:GNG-based notability is based on significance of accomplishments. It is not. It is based on depth of reliable sourcing. I think the multi-page profile I added and the paragraph about him in the SUNY 1895 source are enough, for someone from that time. And as for accomplishments: president of what is now the National Education Association is significant, but far from his only accomplishment. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I found another four pages of in-depth coverage of him in another source [Aurner 1924] and added it to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn based on additional sources identified by David Eppstein - good work. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Editors who work in this subject area believe this article subject meets WP:NSPECIES which is the notability standard here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rama rama

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

The only other sources I could find is a trivial mention that contradicts our article: [63] and this one: [64] which calls it a misidentification? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be some uncertainty about current placement, but that does not mean that the species does not exist or does not represent a valid classification. It appears in one recent checklist as a cyprinid [65] but in another, as well as in Fishbase and CoL (and our article) as Bagridae [66][67][68], and is present in a number of other checklists and publications [69][70]. CoL states "Considered in some literature as synonym of Chandramara chandramara (Hamilton)" (also a bagrid). So, the taxonomic status is murky, but that is something to sort out out and summarize in the article. No grounds for deletion. (The "misidentification" mentioned above refers to particular specimens from a particular collection, and has no bearing on taxonomic status as a whole.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be any in depth secondary coverage which is the grounds for deletion. I can't access the last link but all the others are quite trivial in coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not require "in-depth coverage" for species in excess of the original description and inclusion in multiple reliable databases. I am aware that discussions are ongoing re WP:NSPECIES (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)), but what you are assuming here sounds like one of the far-end positions in that discourse that was never going to gain majority traction, and certainly does not seem likely to end up as the conclusion. If that is your deletion rationale, then this is an assured non-starter. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do require that. WP:WHYN. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...welcome to AfD, where we get this exact issue twice a month, which is why we are currently trying to formalize it into a special notability guideline. I'll sum this up as "Keep per WP:NSPECIES" and leave it to others to reiterate the argument. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated above, notability guidelines are unique when the subject of an article is an officially named species. --Jtwhetten^(talk) 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad Rockets

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

Not enough coverage; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the following articles,

Chandigarh Lions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chennai Superstars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dhaka Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delhi Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hyderabad Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Royal Bengal Tigers (sports team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lahore Badshahs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mumbai Champs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be perfect candidates for collection in a List of Indian Cricket League teams. This would mean a merge all to such a list. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I did ponder a redirect, but this event was so long ago, do people really remember the names of the teams which took part? I know I didn't! So I thought it was unlikely people would search for them in 2024. AA (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Founded and dissolved same year 2008. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT. RangersRus (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non notable crap. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wikibear47 (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aware Girls

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

Notability issue. WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you elaborate on the notability concerns? On a quick glance, there are a lot of cites from major publications. The founder has her own article, no doubt at least partly on the strength of having founded this organization. If there's a notability issue I'm not seeing it but perhaps you had something specific in mind. Oblivy (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose @Wikibear47: should edit all of their AFDs and provide more detailed explanations so that we can better analyze them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The only reason for AFD is because this one looks like WP:PROMOTION to me. Does it really deserve its own article? Just my thought. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability issue. WP:GNG" is not a sufficient reason to offer for an article's deletion. It also doesn't demonstrate that you followed procedures and did a WP:BEFORE before deciding to nominate this article. You have to show your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If the language is promotional, it can be fixed but WP:NOTCLEANUP says that such issues shouldn't be raised here.
Since nobody has voted to delete, you can still withdraw the nomination. Once you're up to speed on how these things work, and if at that point you genuinely believe there's a notability issue, you could bring the AfD again. Oblivy (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what is worse is that you cut and pasted this same deletion rationale for all of your deletion nominations! This is not acceptable. I'm going to consider doing a procedural close on these AFDs because it's apparent you didn't put much thought into these nominations, Wikibear47. I would encourage you to withdrawn these nominations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wikibear47 (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vincent's Home for the Aged

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

Notability issue. WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wikibear47 (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South City Hospital

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

Notability issue. WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wikibear47 (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sada-e-Umeed

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issue. WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wikibear47 (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family Educational Services Foundation

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

Notability issue. WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikibear47 "Notability issue" is a generic reason for starting an AfD; can you expand on a specific rationale relating to this organisation and its work? AllyD (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I recommended this one because it looks more like news to me. WP:NOTNEWS. Also it fails to satisfy why it deserves an article based of its work. WP:INHERITORG Wikibear47 (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wikibear47 (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alamgir Welfare Trust

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

Notability issue. WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wikibear47 (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Education Network Pakistan

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issue. WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wikibear47 (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strengthening Participatory Organization

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

Notability issue. WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wikibear47 (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Todd's Welfare Society

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

Notability issue. WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Wikibear47 (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Islamic Medical Association

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

Notability issue. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This may be a day short, but there is no way that a consensus to delete will be reached, esp. given how the votes have gone over the last couple of days. There's no agreement at all on whether this is a case of 1E, and at any rate it seems like many if not most of the editors argue that this single event is notable enough to warrant inclusion. To stay on the safe side I'll call this "No consensus", but it really looks like a clear "keep". Drmies (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wesley Routh

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

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}}.

WP:BLP1E. Only notable for the shooting, and unlike Thomas Matthew Crooks, who actually injured Trump during the attempt, Routh did not even shoot close to Trump (sources have said he was 300-500 yards away). Even though the FBI has said this is an assassination attempt, very little is known about the suspect at this time. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:RAPID. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: He doesn't have to have injured Trump to be notable; that's not a requirement. Honestly, some of the good arguments used to support keeping the article of Thomas Matthew Crooks could apply to Ryan Wesley Routh. I'm just less convinced of his notability so I won't !vote to keep this time. I think we should wait for more details to appear before we try to determine whether or not he's notable; it's still too early. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Waiting is the best option for the next 24 hours. Leaning towards Draftify/Redirect if nothing else is dug up but his previous activism may be promising. Page metadata needs to be changed, it already claims this guy is an assassin (the point is somewhat moot but I think it’s premature). 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 05:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think waiting feels a little CRYSTALLBALLish. Presumed future notability really oughtn't matter when deciding whether an article is notable enough right now, which is all we're here to do. So there's probably an argument for the article being WP:TOOSOON. Still, I agree with you that many of the arguments used in favour of keeping Thomas Matthew Crooks could apply here (while also sharing your doubts about notability), so I'll hold off from a !vote for now. GhostOfNoMeme 12:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't participate in many of these debates. I think the original author should have waited longer before making the page in the first place. It's been made though and what's done is done - for the moment. Let's not further exacerbate the rush to make it by rushing to delete it. No one will suffer one way or another if we wait a bit before deleting it.

Mentor397 (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just when does an attempted Presidential assassin become notable? When he succeeds in getting a shot off?Amyzex (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the tl;dr of things...he's not charged with attempted murder, because he never fired a shot, he was stopped before he could.

So its technically not an attempted assassination by legal standards, which is why he's only facing gun charges.

(yes the law IS that complicated and convoluted).

there's a reason why the article people are suggesting to merge this with is just called a "shooting" as opposed to an assassination attempt. GokuSS400 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this clearly was an attempted murder. There are three elements of an attempt:

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/attempt/

(1) intent to commit a crime

Routh clearly intended to shoot Trump.

(2) conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward completing the crime

Routh constructed a blind and lay in wait for something like 12 hours

(3) a failure to complete the crime

Routh failed.

So we have someone who attempted to murder a former and perhaps future President. Sounds pretty significant to me. 2601:8C0:A84:7C60:2929:656C:A4C6:41C0 (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Politics, Florida, Hawaii, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as it was reported that Routh had previous charges involving weapons of mass destruction, so this is not WP:BLP1E. 2601:603:300:AFF0:C55A:28C9:721:C5ED (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge back into the main article. As Trump was not injured and no shots were fired at him, I suspect Routh's notability to fade, like many of the other people who are listed at Security incidents involving Donald Trump. This is less of an assassination attempt as it is a security incident or foiled plan. (Luckily) the Secret Service did its job. Natg 19 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't create articles and then wait around to see if they become notable. That's not how this works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I'm not sure if it's a good thing to delete the article now that it's been created. Ideally it wouldn't have been created until we were sure that the subject is notable. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting and draftify -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep laughable to even consider deletion - how much clear political bias does wiki need to unendingly display?! Arguments: obviously WP:RAPID since we have no idea how deep down the rabbit hole this one goes and obviously not WP:BLP1E since he was previously arrested with a fully automatic machine gun = weapon of mass destruction!2600:8800:FF0E:300:7C5A:797:4AF2:99DF (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automatic firearm is not a weapon of mass destruction, despite how the media spins it. It was not what Bush was searching for in Iraq, since there are literal tonnes of AKs there. Thus the WMD issue is a non-starter, so not relevant to notablity -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was charged with "carrying a concealed weapon and possession of a weapon of mass destruction" [71]. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He had a machine gun, which he did not actually use, not a nuclear bomb or similar which is what most people think of as a WMD.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was convicted of that same charge.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/5-things-apparent-assassination-attempt-trump-golf-courses-113712979 David O. Johnson (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owning an AK-47 does not in any way lend itself to establishing notability. This is Florida. If I had a nickel for everyone down here who owns a military style assault rifle, I could stop buying lottery tickets. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. Routh simply won't be significant enough in the future to justify it's own article. It should be merged into a section in Trump International Golf Club shooting. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles for other individuals of a similar level of notability for him who attempted to assassinate presidents without injuring same, including Cipriano Ferrandini, Richard Lawrence (failed assassin) and Raymond Lee Harvey.XavierGreen (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E gives John Hinckley Jr as an example of someone who gets an article anyway. Routh is analogous to Hinckley. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What’s the point in deleting something that has been so thoroughly researched and written? This seems like a cover-up by Harris stans Freespeech2024 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Ryan Routh to John Hinckley Jr. in terms of notability is an argument that doesn't stand up. Hinckley wounded a sitting president and several others including the Press Secretary, who later died of his injuries. Routh allegedly took aim at a former president and was scared off by the USSS before he could do anything. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above. Bedivere (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. No indication Routh is of lasting significance. Incorporate content in other articles where relevant.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting per BLP1E and WP:DELAY. One tends to get tired of people wielding WP:RAPID as a sort of get out of jail free card for the abuse of DELAY and the pervasive rush to create articles that do not meet our guidelines and are unlikely to in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't get very many presidential assassins here on wikipedia and presidential assassins are inherently notable and this event has lots of sources already. The FBI has announced this was an attempted assassination and that makes the subject of this article notable. He has been arrested and charged and will be prosecuted. At present, the FBI has not obtained an indictment which should come very soon, after which this Afd can be updated. Too soon to delete this article. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to the guideline that says failed presidential assassins are inherently notable? I've been around a while but must have missed that one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can point you to numerous articles on presidential assassins which each have their own article. If you try to assassinate a president or former president of the United States, you will most certainly make it into the history books. I don't think I need to state the obvious. The "Guideline" is what gets reduced to practice on WP, and all these former assassins have an article which is reducing it to practice. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2016 assassination attempt on Trump in Las Vegas does not get an article for its perpetrator. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting per WP:BLP1E. No need for a biography and there is no reason it can't be covered sufficiently there. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He already had a fair bit of media coverage before his attempted assassination of Trump, due to his activities in Ukraine. And of course now with his attempted shooting and subsequent arrest and trial, there will be a whole lot more coverage. There doesn't really seem to be any reason to doubt his notability at this point -2003:CA:8718:B90B:3530:38D0:867B:345C (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting per WP:BLP1E and multiple editors above. He wouldn’t be notable without the golf club incident. Bondegezou (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The man didn't even get close, and he's about to go to prison for a very long time where I doubt he's going to have any more notable events that would qualify him for a wiki page. I say this as someone who voted keep on Thomas Matthew Crooks, this guy is not gonna remain notable enough to get his own page a week from now. --Aabicus (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passing WP:GNG right now. Would be presidential assassin. Which is rare. The sourcing is third party and good at the moment. Keep it.BabbaQ (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep; leaning on merge Certainly not a full delete, in case more info comes out and he warrants a page again, I'd like for the edit history to be easily seen for a potential reconstruction. But at the moment, there's not enough info about him to warrant him a page. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep per WP:RAPID and WO:HEY. Subject has had more reporting since yesterday. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only for now. Routh may become more significant as time passes but as of right now we have little to no information about him aside from his past endeavors. I say wait until the FBI interrogates him and we get a more fleshed out story as he is still alive.TJD2 (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable at the moment as more details about him is being unraveled. Suspect was caught alive by FBI according to sources and not dead. The Afd nomination is too quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 08:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This discussion should have started on the talk page per WP:ATD. Anyway... my keep opinion is based on WP:RAPID, another option is to have a redirect to the article where his name is mentioned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to nomination. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 10:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Temporarily Delete while he definitely has the potential for notability, it is important to remember that WP:BLPCRIME still applies even if he's been convicted of a previous offense. It is rather easy to have false/uncertain information circulate especially in the very early stages of a highly publicized event. The FBI/Secret Service has had less than a day to investigate this, and perceived notions around this case can change rapidly. And even then, they are not a jury which can give a conviction.

For this reason I believe it is best to temporarily delete (or to draftify incase of reinstation) as this accusation is the only reason he is notable enough to be considered for his own article, and even then the notability is being debated above.

WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't be ignored just because this is a high profile case, and I am frankly a bit concerned that not a single person has even mentioned this guideline in the entire discussion . Floine (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, for the simple reason that there are independent global and third-party sources about him that tell and delve into his life and story. It is not the first time that is under the media spotlight [72] for is controversial supporting on Ukrainian-Russia war. For now he has considerable notability as a criminal. 109.114.14.46 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this individual has had a bit of a past, and one does not have to fire a bullet at a person in order to attempt an assassination on them. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I see it doing no harm to keep it. SlaterRaptor1976 (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I suggest we keep the content but merge it with Trump International Golf Club shooting SlaterRaptor1976 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep per others. - Sebbog13 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:BLP1E on an event that itself is facing an argument on whether it deserves a stand-alone article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Thomas Crooks has one I don't see a problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloxzge 025 (talk • contribs) .

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument to use on its own. GhostOfNoMeme 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:BLP1E on an event that itself is facing an argument on whether it deserves a stand-alone article. I second deletion. Let us stop making an article for every idiot who trespasses with intentions to commit a felony. We are not a Tabloid! Delete immediately or lose the credibility as an Encyclopaedia. Also, giving visibility to such people reinforces their desire to kill.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.68.175 (talk • contribs)

Also, giving visibility to such people reinforces their desire to kill. Maybe so, but Wikipedia is not censored. What's important is the verifiability and notability of an article's subject. GhostOfNoMeme 12:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per his criminal history and past interviews with news media in combination with his most recent arrest. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the event page per BLP. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: WP:BLP1E. Nothing really happened here. The event itself might not even warrant its own article. C F A 💬 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not nearly as notable as Crooks, and he is also a living person so BLP1E is involved here. We can recreate the article later if we need to. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Now meets WP:GNG. Sir MemeGod  14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:RAPID also we have Squeaky Fromme, who also failed at an assassination where no one was hurt. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LuxembourgLover: We also don't have Michael Steven Sandford who failed at an assassination of Trump where nobody was hurt. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a person grabbing a cops gun is not the same as police opening fire a a guy aiming at trump. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, see Salvador Ramos, a man who killed 21 people in ~90 minutes, also someone who doesn't have an article because the section on them is perfectly fine. The only notability by Routh so far is his involvement in an incident not even primarily regarding him (WP:CRIME). While he does meet Perp criteria 1, they still don't even know if this is the right guy. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out my comment, I have now realized that the two are barely comparable. Sir MemeGod  21:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per above fails WP:N until the shooter is confirmed articles should not be created. SKAG123 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge No need for a separate page here. The previous criminal history is not relevant to notability. Reywas92^Talk 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was able to find more articles that date back before his attempted assassination, including his marriage and his life with his wife. Plus, it is the second attempted assassination of Donald Trump during the 2024 Election. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't see any reason to delete this. I also expect a lot more coverage as he goes to trial and more details are revealed.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous attempted assassin of Trump's page was also kept. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per others

Waleed (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; does not satisfy the deletion requirements re: WP:BLP1E. To wit, requirement 3 (The event was not significant and/or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well-documented) is not met:

The event is significant; it is an assassination attempt of a former President of the United States. The example that BLP1E gives for notability is literally the Reagan assassination attempt.
The role of Ryan Wesley Routh is substantial; he is the primary suspect.
While the role of Ryan Wesley Routh is not well documented, this is covered by WP:RAPID as multiple people have noted, as the situation has not yet had enough time to develop and be written about.

𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The event was not "significant". The example given is the Reagan assassination attempt, where Reagan was severely wounded and nearly died. All that happened yesterday was that someone was found with a gun in a bush at Trump's golf course. No injuries at all – Routh didn't even let off any shots. All three criteria of BLP1E are met here (1: Covered in the context of a single event; 2: Obviously a low-profile individual; 3: the event was not "significant" enough to warrant a separate biography). C F A 💬 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but regarding Routh didn't even let off any shots I don't think it's known either way, yet. CBC and NPR are both reporting that it's "unclear" whether he let off any shots before the USSS agent(s?) opened fire. The New York Times similarly says it's unclear whether he took any shots "before fleeing" (presumably meaning the time between being engaged by the agents and his fleeing).

Personally, I don't think this will amount to anything like the Crooks event. I don't see it being significant now or in the future. GhostOfNoMeme 20:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair enough, I guess. I was reading this Politico article which states: The Sunday incident was “not like what happened in Butler,” [the sherrif] said ... “He did not get off any rounds, and that was because the Secret Service agent acted quickly,”. C F A 💬 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparent by now that the shooter did not manage to fire the weapon, but then again, neither did Squeaky Fromme. Given her association with Manson and her well-documented story she has her own article. Routh apparently has a well-documented criminal history and has been the subject of numerous interviews and articles; that on their own wouldn't be notable enough for a BLP -- but his involvement with what is an apparent assassination plot has made him notable. Similar to Fromme, her notability would be diminished had she not plotted to kill a president. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant media coverage, very similar to Thomas Matthew Crooks. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gregory Lee Leingang also tried to kill President Trump in 2017, but he did not get his own Wikipedia page. Neither men made a shot or any contact with him. Catboy69 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant media coverage. Don't see an issue since Thomas Crooks has one. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It is true that Thomas Matthew Crooks underwent the same treatment in its early stages, with attempted redirects along the way. I'm against using that as keep justification though, considering that he has been confirmed as the attempted assassin of his case, whereas Routh is unconfirmed-- not to mention that there were no shots fired nor injuries sustained. Reasoning for weak keep is that there is significant media coverage, paired with the identification of being a suspect. RadiantTea (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RAPID.Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Participant in a major news story. Another example of deletionism gone wild. Moncrief (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per earlier precedent such as Crooks. We are seeing the beginnings where political violence is being normalized once again in the US since the 1960s (Ronald Reagan's assassin wasn't really politically-motivated ..more of a celebrity fetish/crush thing ). Such novel developments should be represented via individuals such as these. I also disagree with editors saying "He barely did anything" , this also doesn't fit precedents in other cases (1) . Routh is notable enough , whenever he pulled the trigger or not. The fact he was the second person who attempted to assassinate Trump and has a clear political history compared to the late aloof and equivocal Crooks (Who literally was a kid), makes him in some way more interesting for readers.

TheCuratingEditor (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:LASTING. Not notable for just this one incident at this time, and appears unlikely to be notable in the future (with the event itself currently bordering on being notable enough to sustain an article). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RAPID. Neighborhood Review (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting _pbp 19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he satisfies the notability requirements, the shooting and his Russo-Ukrainian War related activities combined together satisfy the guidelines.XavierGreen (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Given all the speculation, thorough coverage of Routh would unbalance the main article, but a brief summary is likely to produce an unbalanced account of Routh's politics and motivations. Nuance matters in a politically charged issue like this one, and the best way to maintain nuance is to maintain an article, at least for now. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point in time it quite literally is too soon to dismiss him as not notable or not worthy of coverage. It has been ONE day since the investigation began. To close the book on him and say he's not worthy of note is a rush to judgement on many fronts. While the investigation runs its course and the Court moves as well, it can be re-evaluated as more information comes to light. However for the moment, rushing to delete or saying both the would-be assailant and the incident are not notable is an extreme rush to judgement as there are obviously facts that we don't know yet. In cases like this it's best to wait a few days and as much as a week before making any judgement calls. GokuSS400 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This person tried to assassinate a former President who is a current party's nominee for president. This was almost immediately known; and every fact disclosed since the attempted assassination has confirmed that it was an attempted assassination. The FBI has now stated that he was "lying in wait" for Trump for nearly 12 hours. Let the people see the facts as they are publicly known... otherwise, the attempt to delete this article is just another censorship attempt. What else do you need... a conviction? Dw1215 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect As clear a case of WP:BLP1E as there is. The incident is notable, but that's about it. If a person in Uruguay, Botswana, Laos, or Fiji appeared in the vicinity of a leading politician, we wouldn't even consider having a separate article for them. The US are no different. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those citing WP:BLP1E should note that it is not monolithic: it presents John Hinckley Jr. as an exception in the context of the 1981 assassination attempt. That's an essentially identical situation to Routh's. ~ HAL333 21:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this. Routh's situation is more akin to someone like Gregory Lee Leingang, who also had an "attempt" to assassinate Trump but did not get close enough to injure him. Leingang is briefly mentioned on Security incidents involving Donald Trump, and so Routh could be mentioned there, or at the main article about this incident. Natg 19 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar situation is Michael Steven Sandford (2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident), who also does not have a separate article. Natg 19 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless examples, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I could just as easily bring up Sara Jane Moore from the Attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in San Francisco or Squeaky Fromme from the Attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in Sacramento: neither of whom injured a president. Unlike you, I was citing Wikipedia policy, specifically condition 3 of WP:BLP1E. Routh's role was 1) substantial and 2) well-documented in RS. ~ HAL333 23:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333 You understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your example of John Hinckley Jr., right? Though I agree with Natg that Hinckley isn't in the same category as Routh appears to be. As far as conditions are concerned, Routh's role may have been "substantial" in the context of the "apparent" attempted assassination, but there's an or there that you seem to be missing, and that's the event is not significant, and this one clearly is borderline right now given nothing happened (nobody was hurt or injured, and one Secret Service agent fired his weapon). Being well-documented in RS is not sufficient enough to justify a separate article. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man. Hinckley's not my example. It's WP:BLP1E's. And the "or" is irrelevant if Routh meets both points for condition 3, as he does. An assassination arrempt on the former POTUS is not "significant"? Come on. Notability is not dependent on fatality. ~ HAL333 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I would cite BLP1E for this. I believe this fits more under WP:NOPAGE. However, if we are to argue BLP1E, I don't believe this is incident is "significant" per point 3. Routh was not close enough to Trump to fire off a shot, nor was anyone injured in this incident. This incident is given more press coverage in light of the assassination attempt in July, but if this incident had happened in January or February, no one would think much of it. Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it didn't happen in January of February... ~ HAL333 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... but the event was not significant (criteria 3 of BLP1E). Routh apparently never even let off a shot. He was found in a bush with a gun and was promptly arrested. Hinckley, on the other hand, actually shot (and nearly killed) Reagan. C F A 💬 23:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The media certainly thinks Routh's actions were significant, if the extensive coverage is anything to go by. Wikipedia should follow the judgement of reliable sources, not insert its own judgement. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the word criteria is plural. The singular is criterion. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I suppose I should have treated the word media as plural myself. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many many many reliable covering Routh and diving into his life. He certainly passes WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — at least for now, per WP:RAPID.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 21:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting. It is a bad idea to give deluded shooters their own page. If you do, you may as well declare open season on every single elected official. (This is my first edit in years. Regrets if it looks crude. I really need to learn Wikipedia syntax.) --Mr-Encyclopedia-Man (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect and Draftify per Natg 19 and others. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RAPID. Bardadrac (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RAPID. Spilia4 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man is now part of history. A comparable situation is Squeaky Fromme who hoped to kill President Gerald Ford but did not manage to fire her gun. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Per above. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. A textbook example of why we have WP:RAPID. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 00:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wiki is truthful Tobenschain (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID, and there are now many notable sources discussing him specifically, and arguably his ukraine interviews made him notable enough even before this event. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting. Very clearly a violation of BLP1E, which is exemplified by basically all of the sources in the article being from yesterday and today. Claims he was notable prior, such as by Scaledish just above me, are not represented in the slightest. Further claims of individual notability just because of this incident are belied by the other examples in Security incidents involving Donald Trump, where there have been several assassination attempts on Trump over the past decade, with only the one prior to this being notable enough to have a separate article on the perpetrator. Please note that many of the accounts voting Keep above are both new and WP:SPAs who aren't even making policy reasons in their votes, so should be wholesale disregarded by the closer. Failure of the closer to do so will prompt me (and I'm sure many others) to immediately take this to Deletion Review, as what matters in AfDs is policy arguments, not numbers. Silver seren^C 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the closer should disregard any WP:RAPID arguments, as by the very nature of the policy page it is on, RAPID is about events, not people. So if this was an AfD for the Trump International Golf Club shooting, then it would be a policy argument, but this is not an event article, this is a BLP article. Furthermore, literally right above RAPID on the same policy page is WP:DELAY, which applies just as much, if not more so. Silver seren^C 02:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I am neither new nor an SPA. I have been editing for over 15 years and have made over 100,000 edits. As for WP:RAPID, that guideline language says It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer. 36 hours after the Secret Service fired the shots, the significance of the event and the accused is crystal clear to those who read the voluminous coverage in many reliable sources that have published independent coverage of this man today. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you acknowledge that there's a ton of SPAs and newly made accounts here making non-policy arguments? As for RAPID, you even note yourself that the event is significant, but we're not discussing the event here. We're discussing if the accused has independent notability from the event, which RAPID doesn't support and also has not been shown. Large amounts of coverage of the event doesn't inherently then mean the person involved deserves a separate article. Silver seren^C 03:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, we do not delete a new article because new editors support keeping the article, especially when experienced editors like me also support keeping the article. Major top tier news sources worldwide are not only reporting on the event, but are also publishing countless separate independent articles devoted to investigating the background of this person who has multiple felony convictions including for barricading himself with a machine gun about 20 years ago, and who was written up in the New York Times just last year for his incompetent efforts to recruit former Afghan soldiers to go fight against Russia in Ukraine. As well as being a Wikipedia editor and administrator, I am also a Wikipedia reader and user. In those last two roles, I resent the efforts of some Wikipedia editors to deny me the right to learn as much about this person as possible in a curated article in the world's greatest encyclopedia, instead forcing me and other readers to do online searches and evaluate source reliability on our own, and sort out the grains of wheat from the massive internet chaff. That is the very purpose of Wikipedia, and if folks want to delete articles about people like Squeaky Fromme and this individual, I will always oppose that vigorously. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Too many reliable sources. — Nameless^(?) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll nominate this to be kept. I've inspected the article and it has plenty of information for an own article, there are also plenty of reliable sources. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 07:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far too many editors playing investigator and connecting his name with old newspaper articles. Everything that actually should be included is mentioned on the article about the shooting. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle, the connections to "old newspaper articles" is being made by the highest quality reliable sources now, not by Wikipedia editors doing their own original research. Are you reading the actual coverage? Cullen328 (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading what was in the article. Which at the time was original research that goes against NOTPRIMARY and BLP in some cases such as marriage records. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge. As it stands, the page feels like a more verbose version of the perpetrator section on the golf club page. I don't feel like that's needed context per WP:PAGEDECIDE. If people look up his name to get the attempt, we could easily redirect it to that section and lose minimal context, if any. HeptatonicScale (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON - the information contained in the article is simply too speculative - Wait and get information as it comes as to not violate WP:BLP with unfounded information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unexpectedinquisition (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's already a large and growing body of published articles about the guy. He meets notability requirements. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: For everyone citing WP:BLP1E, that policy gives John Hinckley Jr as an example of someone who gets an article anyway. Routh is analogous to Hinckley. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but either Draftify or Keep as sadly, if Thomas Matthew Crooks, solely notable for another attempted assassination, could remain due to the general notability guideline, then we should probably stop beating a dead horse and acknowledge that in technicality, Routh is notable enough for an article. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not bound by "technically we have to" if it seems clear that an article is simply not valid for inclusion, especially if your thoughts behind "technically" is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1ENOT. Role in the particular recent event significant. Role well-documented. Event notable. Not a low-profile individual. Reliable sources do not even cover him only in the context of a single event. Possible to write a biography as evidenced by the content of the page. Content encyclopedic and educational. Facts due. Background and context encyclopedically meaningful. Too much information alien to the event and far removed from it to merge into the event article.—Alalch E. 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting essay, and this individual clearly meets the criteria discussed in it. Pretty obvious why some editors want this BLP binned. Yet, we have Thomas Matthew Crooks, who outside of an initial flurry of coverage, it's highly unlikely that we'll get additional details around what motivated him or his background. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep H's being specifically named worldwide, and the list keeps growing, not low-profile by any means.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant and likely lasting media coverage. Different than Thomas Matthew Crooks but has received similar levels of coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: likely to have a continued coverage. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect Some people may be interested in the other activities of this person, but that is for the tabloids: the pertinent information for inclusion on Wikipedia is entirely about his involvement in an event. That event has an article that is well-developed enough it warrants a decent "suspect" section. Keep the name redirect for searchability. I would probably say the same about Thomas Matthew Crooks, FWIW, but it can also be said that Crooks got a shot on and then was killed, so significance as an individual is a bit bigger. Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really account for Wikipedia having an article for Squeaky Fromme, but I don't want to wander too far into other stuff, etc. We cover aspects of a subjects life that reliable sources deem notable enough to cover in depth, per WP:WEIGHT. If RS cover other aspects of Routh's history in depth, Wikipedia has a responsibility to cover that as well (with respect to policy). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep bringing up Fromme having an article and, as you note: WP:OTHERSTUFF. We're talking about this article, not if a different one should exist or if justification for one transfers to another.

It doesn't matter how many RSs decide to flavour the meal, if it's not information that establishes notability, then it shouldn't be considered here. While we (rightly) include that 'flavour' in BLPs, the notability has to be established first. When we take the flavour out, all we're left with is information that belongs at the event article. As I said, that article is decent enough you can have a longer "suspect" section including some background if you want. Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As per above. FloridaMan21 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeeporMerge: (I don't really care which one) - as long as the information is correct. This will be politicly important for the presidential election in the US, and that will be important for the world. As sad as that is. 90.186.87.94 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect: to Trump International Golf Club shooting. This article adequately covers the event, and there's a section about the suspect that can be expanded. We must keep in mind WP:BLPCRIME, which states that a living person accused of crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. There's no need for a separate article about Routh. DesiMoore (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet notability and contains additional relevant details that would be too much to add to the main article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 18:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge & Redirect: to Trump International Golf Club shooting. Two policies point against a stand alone page - WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Both policies point to the core policies of material about living persons - articles "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." --Enos733 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. An enough lot of RS coverage is coming out about Routh very recently and intially appears notable based on this, as with Crookes. Do not in principle oppose an AfD in a month or two's time once the dust has settled, but considering the further coverage during his trial and likely sentencing it seem unlikely to become unnotable. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given significant media coverage and meets WP:GNG. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think That having an article on this man will help our historical understanding of this election, two assassination attempts in one election cycle is unprecedented. He's also an oddball, the information online about him and his motives tell an interesting story that is unique. He probably has the largest digital footprint of any attempted or successful US presidential assassin. It does help that it's a very funny digital footprint. Spicygarbage (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1ENOT. Good amount of media coverage. 10 year test - remember that guy who tried to kill Trump while he was golfing? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Notable for a single WP:RECENT event and can be adequately covered in Trump International Golf Club shooting. We don't need to re-post every single detail of his life that happens to be in a news report this week. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I'm also not convinced Thomas Matthew Crooks should be a stand-alone article, versus just a decent-sized section in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. ZimZalaBim has some great points right above me. However, general notability guidelines are extremely selectively enforced. Would this be kept if it were, say, a person attempting to assassinate a foreign leader? I feel like this might belong better in the event article, just like Crooks, buuuuuuuut it's a major event, so I think it could be notable. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Not notable in his own right, and this should be dealt with within the broader article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly obvious keep, this guy is accused of attempting to assassinate a former US president while that president is running for re-election as a candidate for one of the two major American parties. If this doesn't qualify as 'notable' in the eyes of dozens of Wikipedia editors, then what does count? Should we (the people who believe that some insect species found on a single unpopulated island in the Philippines are notable in their own small way) just give it up already? Should we just get it over with and delete Wikipedia altogether? Maybe, if we could have a small concession, we could delete everything except the Earth page, and on that write the word 'harmless' and nothing else? Perhaps, if I could be greedy, I could convince you to allow us to write 'mostly harmless', though it does take up more space? Joe (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thomas Matthew Crooks has his own page, so should Ryan. Scuba 12:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / merge (Redacted) 124.169.141.129 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the WP:NOTBLP1E essay permits such articles on a low-profile individual notable for only a single event in which he had a substantial and well-documented role. He is an alleged attempted assassin of a former U.S. president who is currently running for a non-consecutive term in an election that has been described as an election that will determine the fate of democracy and therefore this individual will be a defining moment not just in the context of this assassination attempt but in this election. cookie monster 755 18:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is very infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Routh has a lot of good sources on him, he also has other sources of his past crimes which adds more notability Joey (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID. We can always re-evaluate in 30 days. Rob (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1ENOT. Notable for more than just the shooting, having been profiled in NYT, Newsweek etc. for his activities in Ukraine. AmygdalicGloss (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting simply for reasons that have already been described, i think his Infobox could be very good there. StrongALPHa (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now, per WP:SUSPECT. For individuals who are not public figures editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Maintaining an article on Routh at this stage strongly implies that he is guilty of trying to kill Trump when such fact has not been established. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase in that policy is seriously consider. It's not a hard-and-fast dictum against documenting charges that are being pursued in a court of law, particularly if mentioning the charges is justified by the notability of the case. The editors have been careful to use words like allegedly and suspect, so the presumption of innocence is being respected. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given the extensive coverage of the charges against Routh, I would contend that he is a public figure now. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. See Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. TRCRF22 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. "High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program" - Routh gave interviews connected to his role as a recruiter for Ukrainian armed forces. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So... clearly not a low-profile individual. I would cite that essay precisely to argue that he is not a low-profile individual. —Alalch E. 22:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, he did tried to kill a former US president. That would be considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. rektz (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was news coverage of Routh even before the murder attempt. Perhaps he is independently notable as a skateboard advocate/rapist-chasing vigilante/war recruiter/local petty criminal. Bremps... 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petty crime or being a "local hero" does not make one notable. The "recruiter for Ukraine" may be indepedently notable, but that did not get much coverage until now, when journalists started looking deeper into his background. Routh was not a "known" figure for his recruitment efforts, and Ukrainian organizations disavow knowing him. Natg 19 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Our readers have a reasonable expectation of certain types of content. A biography of an attempted assassin — agglomerating information from a wide range of public sources — is exactly one such case. Miles over the GNG.... Carrite (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BLP1E is for the winner of a lottery or a gameshow, not a progatonist in a world-historical event. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP alleged attempted assassination of former US president and candidate merits wikipedia article. Shoehorning into golf assassination attempt cries out for removing history of the gentleman. Brucer42 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The discussion is in the news right now. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't that something. TheBritinator (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine considering The Daily Wire "news". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A funny sort of news piece. The writer doesn't seem to have noticed that most editors are arguing to keep the article. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a bit of a journalistic oversight not to mention that there is a clear consensus to keep the page. Any crackpot can nominate the Earth page for deletion, it would only reflect badly on Wikipedia if we actually did it. Joe (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and good faith assumptions are nice and all, but "journalistic oversight" is stretching it. It's a sensationalist hitpiece at its core. Hell, the link to this discussion is a revision comparison to mobile Wikipedia rather than just a straight link to this page. There's little research involved here. I hope people who somehow see this article from the news post are aware of WP:POLL. RadiantTea (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article appears to be quite extensive and well sourced. Notability seems assured. TheBritinator (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fail to see how notability of the person and his actions are in question. The more info that comes out, the more apparent it becomes it is notable ++Arx Fortis (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Routh is now a notable public figure, with too much info on his background to fit onto the main article. User:Ageofultron (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Numerous would-be assassins, such as Squeaky Fromme and Raymond Lee Harvey, have their own articles despite never firing a shot. I don't see why Routh is any less notable. User:MrsKoma (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and ever-increasing significant RS coverage. We can re-evaluate a few months from now to determine whether or not this a case of WP:BLP1E. Sal2100 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too early for a sensible decision. 90.142.52.139 (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no matter the outcome, I feel like this discussion is invalid, since the article is under the Russo-Ukraniar war contentious topic, which is under an extended-confirmed restriction. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU Not really. It's more so categorized as a presidential assassination attempt. No one knows why he did it. Was it Ukraine? Probably not, I think he was just severely mentally unstable. Alexysun (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only very tangentially related to that topic. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would the article fall under that topic, though? I know we're told it applies "broadly", but just how broadly exactly? Routh's notability doesn't stem primarily from his involvement in the Russia–Ukraine conflict; it seems the connection is pretty tangential. I don't know what sort of precedent there is for how we categorise articles under contentious topics, though. GhostOfNoMan 02:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we did run a second deletion discussion with just extended confirmed users, the consensus would only be more lopsided in the direction of keep, given that when this page was initially nominated for deletion there weren't half as many RS on this guy as there are now. Joe (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge He didn't even fire a shot. If things develop and we know more, we can write an article about him. EpicAdventurer (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 03:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unpunked Sound

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians. Working as best as I can through machine translation, the sources in the article appear to be either self-published or lack significant coverage of the subject, or both. A quick check for more sources turned up nothing useful. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Brazil. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping for AfC reviewer Kvng. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in complete agreement with the nominator. All I can find on the band are basic listings in the usual self-upload and promotional sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenis Kukaj

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

23 games in Albania’s highest league, brief career in the semi-pro second tier. I am unable to find significant coverage of the player, which would be needed to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I only found this as well as this, where the news outlet bears the Wordpress logo, i.e. looks like a blog. Geschichte (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GNG. Sir MemeGod  15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not pass the notability criteria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Scholl

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

The claim to notability, playing 66 minutes in the second league of Portugal, is extremely weak. There are some sources, but they seem like WP:ROUTINE transactional news: [73] [74] [75]. These two might be more substantial, but are paywalled: [76] [77]. Perhaps someone can access them? Either way, his achievements were so minor that I don't think it meets the policies. Geschichte (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Belgium, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Qingdao No. 1 International School of Shandong Province

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Qingdao No. 1 International School of Shandong Province

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, only 1 source provided which confirms its address. Previous AfD was keep based on high schools being inherently notable, which is no longer true. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. "Qingdao No 1 International School of Shandong Province (QISS)". China Daily. 2018-03-19. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "Qingdao No 1 International School of Shandong province (QISS) opened its doors on August 16, 2007 to students from Pre-K to Grade 12. It is currently enrolling approximately 300 students from over 30 countries. QISS is accredited by WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges) and is a member of ACAMIS (Association of Chinese and Mongolian International Schools)."
2. Shi, Yanhong 石艳虹 (2010-10-15). "青岛国际学校只收外籍人员子女一年花费几十万" [Qingdao International School only accepts children of foreign nationals and costs hundreds of thousands of yuan a year]. 城市信报 [City Xinbao] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "今年8月，山东省青岛第一国际学校新校区建成，学生主要来自美国、加拿大等20多个国家和地区，采用小班制教学，堪称岛城的“贵族学校”。... 在青岛，国际学校的学费基本在每年十万元以上，在中国家长看来可能有些咂舌。... 这些学校是经过国家教育部及青岛市教育局批准的，只招收驻青外籍人员子女。中国大陆孩子要入学，必须有外国的绿卡或者港、澳、台相关证件或者外国护照。"
  From Google Translate: "In August this year, the new campus of Qingdao No. 1 International School in Shandong Province was completed. The students mainly come from more than 20 countries and regions such as the United States and Canada. It adopts small class teaching and can be called the "noble school" of the island city. ... In Qingdao, the tuition fees of international schools are basically more than 100,000 yuan per year, which may be a bit shocking to Chinese parents. ... These schools are approved by the Ministry of Education and the Qingdao Municipal Education Bureau and only accept children of foreign nationals stationed in Qingdao. To enroll, children from mainland China must have a foreign green card or relevant documents from Hong Kong, Macao, or Taiwan, or a foreign passport."
3. Liu, Mao 刘淼 (2010-08-19). "青岛第一国际学校启用幼儿园高中一条龙(图)" [Qingdao No.1 International School opens, providing a one-stop service from kindergarten to high school (photo)]. 青岛早报 [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "山东省青岛第一国际学校毗邻滨海大道，位于中国海洋大学崂山校区南面。学校由青岛城投集团负责投资、建设、运营、管理，2008年8月奠基，2009年底完成施工建设。学校占地面积100亩，总建筑面积4.88万平方米，总招生规模2050人，设有幼儿园、小学、初中、高中等学部。学校的学生主要来自美国、加拿大、韩国、日本、英国、法国、德国、澳大利亚等20多个国家和地区。"
  From Google Translate: "The First International School in Qingdao, Shandong Province is adjacent to Binhai Avenue and is located south of the Laoshan Campus of Ocean University of China. The school is invested, constructed, operated and managed by Qingdao Urban Investment Group. The foundation was laid in August 2008 and the construction was completed at the end of 2009. The school covers an area of 100 acres, with a total construction area of 48,800 square meters and a total enrollment of 2,050 people. It has kindergartens, elementary schools, junior high schools, and high schools. The school's students mainly come from more than 20 countries and regions including the United States, Canada, South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Australia."
4. Zhu, Ying 朱颖 (2009-08-03). "首发：青岛第一国际学校今起招标投资2.1亿" [First release: Qingdao No. 1 International School starts bidding today with an investment of 210 million yuan]. Qingdao News [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "据了解，总投资2.1亿元的青岛第一国际学校，位于青岛市高科技工业园，松岭路以东、中国海洋大学崂山校区以南，预计今年9月前落成，学校总占地面积约6.7万平方米，学校计划招生规模为2056人，学生实行寄宿制，学费每人约一万美元/年。"
  From Google Translate: "It is understood that the Qingdao No.1 International School, with a total investment of 210 million yuan, is located in the Qingdao High-tech Industrial Park, east of Songling Road and south of the Laoshan Campus of Ocean University of China. It is expected to be completed before September this year. The school covers a total area of about 67,000 square meters. The school plans to enroll 2,056 students. The students will be boarding students, and the tuition fee is about 10,000 US dollars per person per year."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Qingdao No 1 International School of Shandong Province (simplified Chinese: 山东省青岛第一国际学校; traditional Chinese: 山東省青島第一國際學校) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Let's not get hung up on procedural wonkery - this is essentially a {{db-move}} request and probably a {{db-g14}} candidate as well. No point in dragging out an AFD for it. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Park Sung-hoon

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:PRIMARYRED, unnecessary disambiguation page as only one other article currently exists for this name, Park Sung-hoon (actor). Other person named Park Sunghoon is located at Sunghoon per his WP:COMMONNAME.

Disambiguation page should be deleted and Park Sung-hoon (actor) should be moved into its place at Park Sung-hoon. RachelTensions (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that a hatnote already exists at Park Sung-hoon (actor) directing people looking for the singer of the same name to Sunghoon. RachelTensions (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Disambiguations, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ and SALT. None of the Keep views carried any P&G weight, and there was no support for the draftification proposal. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legends League Cricket

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a deleted article following this AfD. Apparently because the wording and WP:REFBOMBS are different, it cannot be a G4 speedy... Non-notable, just as it was a month and a bit ago, with WP:REFBOMBS and no establishment of WP:GNG. Just because retired players are taking part, doesn't mean notability is inherited. Coverage within the refbombs is routine. AA (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. AA (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I previously commented that the page should not be deleted because this is known cricket league. And In this all are international cricket players. And this is the main page of league not season page and also old league. I think it should be not be deleted because a lot of news references are available.
PQR01 (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't actually contribute at the last AFD (at least not as this logged in user). But WP:NOTINHERITED applies- just because notable people compete, that doesn't make this event notable. If you didn't like that it was deleted, WP:Deletion review would have been the proper process, not re-creating the article and thus forcing another AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the previous comment PQR01 is referring to is on the talk page of the article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Oman, Qatar, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legends League Cricket. Nothing has changed in the 1 month since the last AFD, and re-creating an article after a clear AFD consensus like this is just disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sockpuppet investigation here, as I am sure many, if not all, of these accounts are linked. AA (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above rationale. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the league is quite notable as it's the most watched league in India after IPL as per BARC with reference to the news. Also the league was started back in 2022 and from then, a total of 4 seasons have happened and the 5th season is about to start from 20th September. The league is approved by Oman & Qatar cricket associations & several state associations in India. Taplow45 (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a lot of personal opinion... where's the WP:GNG, WP:OFFCRIC, WP:EVENT pass? AA (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Among other things, let's see how that sock investigation goes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Seems noteworthy [78] [79], covered in other news sources as well. Although, article should be improved to include a bit more info such as champions, scorecards, stats etc. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Move to mainspace once the article is complete and ready. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Big Legends play and it has continuously grown in stature. Lot of media attention shows that fans want to know about the league thus i think it should be on Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegendaryFan88 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good point. Move the page to main space 103.70.152.141 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The above and below keeps should be discarded as they are likely sockpuppets. I have added LegendaryFan88 to an ongoing sockpuppet investigation... curious isn't it, that LegendaryFan88 has made a handful of edits yet stumbles across this AfD. AA (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like someone has an agenda against the league for not having got a chance to work with them. One of the comments shows that an agency is supporting the author. This league is creating jobs for retired cricketers and other staff. And it is visible on top sports networks across the world. Thus i feel it should have a Wiki page for dissemination of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.141 (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SPI is hopelessly backlogged,but I've protected this discussion for some laundry free discussion as there's no consensus among established editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The creator of the page, along with the associated pro-page IDs and IPs, clearly shows signs of WP:UPE. Also, the page focuses on a cricket league filled with retired players, making it seem more like a promotional one. Charlie (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the so-called league is not run by a sports governing body or organization, but by a company named Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. This highlights that it is not primarily a cricket league to begin with. This information should be taken into consideration until and unless it's proven otherwise. Charlie (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting the re-protection is not related to the initial SPI but rather the ongoing AfD troll. Closers should not see this as action re: the SPI. Star Mississippi 13:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural delete and SALT. Even if not G4-eligible, a community consensus just two months ago determined this to be a non-notable subject for an article. If the page creator wanted to bring this article back, the appropriate forum was first a Deletion Review to overturn that AfD. I see no need to engage with the sources again without a clear rationale offered that the previous AfD was flawed (and it doesn't appear to be). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 00:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Hundred

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

One source (a historical marker database); contested merge. The location (a 1626 parish or planation) doesn't reach WP:GNG. See also discussion at User talk:Jacobsatterfield#I have sent you a note about a page you started. Klbrain (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Hi, please note I was in the middle of updating the article when it was nominated for deletion. It is a significantly more fully developed piece than when nominated.jacobsatterfield (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has developed further (great!), but the references and discussion relate to a much broader topic. None of the new references have Stanley Hundred as their primary subject. Mulberry Island might be reasonable focus for an article with the existing content. So, I therefore that a merge to a broader topic, like Mulberry Island, would be better. Klbrain (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd indeed support a subsection in Mulberry Island article if the consensus is that Stanley Hundred doesn't stand by itself. It would be much more precise/applicable than the previous attempted Warwick Shire merge. For geographic reference, Stanley Hundred would be about 1300 acres out of around 8000 that comprise the entirety of Mulberry Island. For temporal reference, it's about 150 years out of 400 years of recorded history in that area. The Mulberry Island article itself could be significantly expanded with content by a willing editor, there's much more colonial history that isn't given much attention currently, not to mention the overlap with the modern usage as Fort_Eustis aka Joint Base Langley-Eustis. Contra-wise, a large and sprawling Mulberry Island article could get difficult to follow. Might suggest looking for other examples of historical places of similar size to see what works well.

Do note that the cited Richie/Colonial Williamsburg source has over ten pages dedicated specifically to Stanley Hundred, and the place has it's own historical marker separate from Mulberry Island. But I'm ultimately ambivalent to how the taxonomy of WP pages should be structured, I leave that to the editing pros.::Jacobsatterfield (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Also as a point of reference for other reviewers/commentors, see the Flowerdew Hundred Plantation article, which is Yeardley's other plantation contemporary to this one. As that other historical location is not currently on an active military base, it is a bit more visited and well known/documented than this one. As such, another viable option would be to merge all of this under their founder George Yeardley, but again it boils down to personal preferences for one huge article or several smaller ones, perhaps the Article size guidance is helpful here? Guidance/priority/experience/wise words from a senior editor on WP preference to organizing articles by geography, time-period, or biographical association would be useful, as there's no clear taxonomic preference to the overall corpus.

Jacobsatterfield (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version of the page easily demonstrates notability. Whether the article topic is the primary subject of its sources are irrelevant: what matters is that they discuss the topic (other than passing references, like phone-book entries) and that the sources be reliable secondary sources. All but one is secondary (the exceptions being the Virginia Company records), and all of them are reliable. In this kind of context, such sources typically discuss early settlements in detail; I strongly doubt that they merely give passing references. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's been some effort here to improve quality and better document notability. It is now least as good as many other historic articles of similar age/scope, and the articles that link to it. Appreciate Klbrain for originally taking interest in the article and encouraging the cleanup. I'll try to visit some of the related articles such as Mulberry Island and do some better organizing soon, which this discussion has highlighted is needed. Jacobsatterfield (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would definitely have agreed on a delete if the article was still in the state it was in when it was nominated for deletion. Of course it still needs work but notability is clearly established in the current version of the article, in my opinion. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in its current state meets WP:GNG as stated above. Jtwhetten (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge High School, New Zealand

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

Unable to find any sigcov. Can be redirect to Cambridge, New Zealand#Education Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you click on any of the links on this nomination template: "Find sources: "Cambridge High School, New Zealand" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR", a whole lot of sourcing comes up to help verify Cambridge High School, New Zealand. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And which of those sources are reliable, secondary, and in depth? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an unnotable school lacking in sigcov. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, of the sources recently added by Schwede66, only [80] is anything close to significant coverage. The others are routine reporting about the school opening. I would need to see more sources to change my vote. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I wasn't attempting to just add sources that show significant coverage. I've added a few sources to show that some of them show significant coverage. The school closed for a few years and that will have been discussed at length. Sources exist; you just need to look for them. Schwede 66 19:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I searched and didn't find any. You claim there are sources, I don't. The sources you provided are not enough. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, you don't appear to live in New Zealand. Hence, you wouldn't know about PapersPast. And beyond that, you'll find heaps of stuff via ProQuest, which you have access to via the Wikipedia Library. It takes a while to get your head around how it works but once you've figured it out, it's an absolute treasure trove. Schwede 66 08:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 05:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's ridiculous to nominate a high school for deletion that's been around for 140 years. Of course it's notable; you just have to look for sources. Schwede 66 03:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many schools in New Zealand have been around for over a century and lack any SIGCOV, I couldn't even find any coverage for several recently. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Schwede66 and Maile. Definitely notable. TheSwamphen (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I don't have time to edit this at the moment, Papers Past has over 1000 articles referencing Cambridge High School in various national newspapers. The present article just needs updating and more information added. Definitely notable. NealeWellington (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every article I looked at there is not only trivial in coverage (the school is closed, the school won an a sports competition), they are also primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus to Keep this article but none of the arguments to Keep can identify specific sources that provide SIGCOV. Many of you are very experienced editors and you should know we can't accept your avowal of importance of the article subject, you need to bring reliable, secondary, independent sources to this discussion. I'm relisting this discussion to offer you more time to do so. But that is what is needed to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This and this may constitute WP:SIGCOV. Hitro talk 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Substantial independent published coverage, per the above. Carrite (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies the notability requirements for educational institutions. It has been in existence for more than a century and has quite a few famous alumni. Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to its historical significance, being established in 1883, and its notable role in the community. Additionally, it provides verifiable information about the school’s history, controversies, and notable alumni --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Digital USD

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

Non-notable stablecoin. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. RS coverage fails WP:ORGDEPTH and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Cryptocurrencies. An independent search for RS coverage found just routine crypto-oriented articles. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion could close as a Soft Deletion but looking at the article page history, I am very certain that it would be pretty much immediately restored. So, I'm relisting to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources fail WP:NCRYPTO. Everything is from industry publications. C F A 💬 01:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rejecting "industry publications" (a position we should reconsider at an appropriate time and place, but not here and not for this article) I found one brief source. This claim is repeated in other HK media, so just counting once:

First Digital 擬參與香港金管局的穩定幣沙盒 Techub News reported that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s consultation on legislative supervision of stablecoin issuers ended at the end of this month, and many financial institutions are preparing to submit applications and participate in the sandbox. Among them, First Digital Group, a Hong Kong cryptocurrency asset custodian, issued the US dollar stable currency FDUSD in Hong Kong last year. It is now traded on 4 virtual asset platforms, with daily trading volume once exceeding US$6 billion. (plus another paragraph quoting company)

Oblivy (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Yemin

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

Yemin's name gets mentioned a lot in punk zines, but as far as I'm aware, none of those are considered reliable, and he's not mentioned frequently enough outside of them to pass notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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.

Just to note, this was never a bundled nomination, it just concerns one article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterr10 Television Network

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

Attempted to clean up but found a bunch of WP:FAKEREF and unreliable sources. Everything here appears to be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN created by UPE Sock in an attempt to show notability. There are sources about some of the individual networks but as a whole there is nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT which is required to show notability under WP:NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages that are part of the WALLEDGARDEN (many of which do not appear notable) are:

Have not sent any of those to AfD as of yet. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALL. Per nom. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage on the network and its channels and fails to meet organization criterias to pass notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 03:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Schad

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

Subject fails WP:GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. COI history doesn't help either. Gheus (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the article: "Brenda and Jeannine McCann co-founded the company Tribe of Two". So all those references are primary sources, too. _signed,Willondon (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, France, Italy, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage from secondary sources. _signed,Willondon (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim conquest of Mediterranean islands

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

This is a compilation of wars that are mostly unrelated other than that they were waged by Muslim rulers/states. There is no one "Muslim conquest of Mediterranean islands". It neither describes anything that is unique to itself nor properly covers a broader history that reoccurs among sources as a common theme. This article pretty much synthesizes some sort of a narrative and pushes a vague grouping of events. Aintabli (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Algeria, Syria, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The topic of the article seems too broad and without a well-defined scope. It's a collection of various, many of them unrelated, wars waged by various muslim rulers all over the Mediterranean throughout the centuries. Modern scholarship doesn't really treat all these events in a unified manner. @Cplakidas explained it more thoroughly in the talkpage discussion "Article scope is utter WP:OR". Another issue that was pointed out by an editor is the fact that the content might potentially be one-sided, as the article was translated from the Arab wikipedia and uses mostly Arab-language, and many of poor quality, sources. Piccco (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged the article for all the reasons mentioned in the talk page, but there definitely are more problems in terms of source adequateness and verifiability, as well as balance of viewpoints presented. To be clear, the topic, if carefully redefined, has merit. E.g. something on the 'Early Muslim naval campaigns in the Mediterranean', if we consider the early Muslim world as fairly homogeneous during the first centuries of its existence, or the Muslim-Christian naval wars along the lines of Ekkehard Eickhoff's Seekrieg und Seepolitik zwischen Islam und Abendland or the multifaceted Muslim experience of the Mediterranean as in Picard's La Mer des Califes, but it cannot be a catch-all for cherry-picked Muslim naval activity that happened between Muhammad and the Ottomans; it should also not be one-sided, taking only the perspective of the Muslims, or treat only the 'conquests' in detail and gloss over the losses in quick order. Furthermore, much if not all of the topic is actually covered in other articles such as Early Caliphate navy (which also has its problems, but at least has a more clearly defined scope) or Fatimid navy. A pity for the immense translation effort that went into it, but IMO this is a case of WP:STARTOVER. Constantine ✍ 15:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an informative and well sourced article documenting an established and recognised occurrence in history. I don't see how it's original research to group together events that historians themselves typically group together. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The events are factual, but the choice of scope is very much WP:OR as being both too broad geographically and chronologically and too narrow in examining the Muslim conquests only, even if they are centuries apart, but not their context, not the intervening events, etc. It is as WP:OR and unbalanced as having an article on 'Indian victories' with events from remote antiquity to modern times. No historian adopts such a categorization or groups these events together in this uncritical fashion. Constantine ✍ 18:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cplakidas' analysis. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article has all the problems mentioned, although I'm not sure they are quite as bad as implied. The rationale for deletion, however, is weak. Deletion is not an end-around when you don't have the time or wherewithal to improve an article yourself. This is a borderline TNT case to me. The dates in the infobox are not far off the dates of the already cited Seekrieg und Seepolitik zwischen Islam und Abendland. Islands are a focus of recent scholarship Change and Resilience: The Occupation of Mediterranean Islands in Late Antiquity and the works of Luca Zavagno. There is a valid topic here, but the article is terribly unfocused. I'd be satisifed with moving it to draftspace to see if anyone can/wants to fix it before TNTing it. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airnav.com

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV and there is no clear reason why this is a notable website. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article itself has no reference. I cannot find any sources talk about it, only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is very heavily cited (see Google books, Google scholar). There is a page of coverage here and a paragraph of coverage here. I imagine there is more so I suggest participants take a good look at Google books for significant coverage. C F A 💬 02:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fixed Google books link. tedder (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, while CFA didn't cast a "vote" in this discussion, they have brought sources to the discussion which should be reviewed. Soft deletion doesn't seem appropriate as deletion is no longer "uncontroversial".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's hardly more than a passing mention to be found (who runs it? etc), but wow, the quantity of mentions in articles, journals, and websites is - in this case - informative. tedder (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Despite the current article lacking in form and substance, that in itself does not merit deletion if the subject (i.e. the website itself) is notable for its impact—see WP:WEB and the sources that CFA and Tedder linked. With enough time and willing editors, this article could be improved beyond a stub. Jtwhetten (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article itself may not be anything special, but the website is insanely useful for us who are in aviation, including those of us who write about airports, especially smaller general aviation airports. SouthernDude297 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly. Hard to square that against keeping NPOV but there is really no substitute for this site when it comes to general aviation. --Jtwhetten^(talk) 22:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you think the subject is important but have you found sources that provide SIGCOV that can establish notability? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT: Whilst there may be a plethora of sources mentioning Airnav.com, none of them provide significant coverage of the topic itself with only passing mentions of the subject existing and no secondary sources existing. Just because it may be considered "important" by some does not mean that the subject is notable in itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated opinion --- For benefit of the discussion (as well as my own interest in the process here) I scratched out a source assessment table. Currently this only considers the references that exist in the article as most others that I can find are only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS.

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Jtwhetten**
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Merry, John A. (2001). Aviation Internet Directory: A Guide to the 500 Best Web Sites. McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-07-137216-9.	Inclusion in a "top 500" list likely does not constitute significant coverage.	✘ No
Levitt, Carole A.; Mark E. Rosch (2006). The Lawyer's Guide to Fact Finding on the Internet. American Bar Association. p. 690. ISBN 978-1-59031-671-9.	~ Does a summary of the website, its primary uses, benefits, and the value it provides constitute significant coverage?	~ Partial
Silver, H. Ward (2005). Two-Way Radios & Scanners for Dummies. For Dummies. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-7645-9582-0.	~ Does a summary of the website, its primary uses, benefits, and the value it provides constitute significant coverage?	~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20121105213703/http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav%2Fapplications%2Fd_afd	The source does not mention the subject.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110228043325/http://www.faa.gov/air%5Ftraffic/flight%5Finfo/aeronav/productcatalog/supplementalcharts/airportdirectory/	The source does not mention the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Given that these "partially significant" sources are mostly summaries, it may better serve the community if this subject is integrated into the articles linked in the second sentence of this article (in the form of "this information is aggregated and freely available at AirNav.com"). I believe this satisfies GNG as well as WP:NOPAGE while keeping this subject listed on WP. I am changing my opinion to Delete. My comment above has been struck. Thanks to all for the discussion. --Jtwhetten^(talk) 14:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of railway stations in Pakistan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandial railway station

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

Absolutely no claim to notability, and no sources. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and no sources. Xegma(talk) 05:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of railway stations in Pakistan for now. Colonial era station, likely notable. Someone with access to local library may find good amount of coverage. Gheus (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. No justification for deleting a highly plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the village that the station serves, Bandial Janubi, with a mention in that article that "the railway station is northeast of the village", pretty much the only fact that I was able to verify from the given coordinates. I found nothing about what trains service the station, its history, or even whether or not the station is still operational. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I think this is the best non-delete option.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a rough consensus to Redirect this article but we have two target article suggestions. We need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of railway stations in Pakistan: Much more fitting for the article's content. Pygos (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of railway stations in Pakistan: Should be a better redirect choice. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian American Women Foundation

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

Isn't a notable organization. jwtmsqeh (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be sources for this organization including the LA Times, Santa Monica Daily Press, an interview with a local radio station, and a doctoral dissertation. I'll add them to the article a bit later tonight or tomorrow, just wanted to put them here for anyone else to evaluate etc. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Santa Monica Daily Press seems like a press release? The LA Times is actually a localized sub paper, not sure if that or the local radio is considered since Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifies that articles "solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability". Also, the article is about an event but the same guideline says "an organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". Happy to withdraw this if I'm misreading though. jwtmsqeh (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I've finally found some material that helps establish notability. Sorry that this took so long just got lost in the cracks. The organization held vigils and bought advertising nationwide to bring attention to the death of Mahsa Amini with coverage from PBS Newshour, The Times, and a two local news stations one in Denver and the other in Pittsburgh. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Support~~ ~~As per the wiki notability principle I don't think this article fulfil the minimal criteria prior to Subject Consideration possible reason fair enough~~ भारतसरकार-विभाग (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We don't have enough opinions here on what outcome is appropriate for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Fight Record | Muay Thai News, Videos, Events and Results". Fight Record. 2024-09-10. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[2] HST page for this object

[1]

[2]