Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AFDLT)
Shortcut
Purge

6 June 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< June 05 June 07 >

Purge server cache

Liam Ayoub edit

Liam Ayoub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Lebanese rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24saat.org edit

24saat.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. Sources in article only contain trivial mentions. The censorship and the website's block and suppression constitute a wider-ranging political issue, and were not specific to this website only. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. Bgv. (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cubana Chief Priest edit

Cubana Chief Priest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article that doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ENT. It is also good saving that "celebrities may be famous but not notable meeting WP:BASIC." Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao edit

V. N. Srinivasa Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[1]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[2]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
    Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.
In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).
But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.
Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[3] in Calamur.
If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper edit

Zack Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPA Cup edit

AfDs for this article:
SPA Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We do not cover schools cricket, unless historically notable, which this is not. Fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:NCRIC/WP:OFFCRIC. AA (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Devodier edit

Alessandro Devodier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of the subject, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements with routine coverage (1, 2, 3, 4) JTtheOG (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jandré Blom edit

Jandré Blom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vish Burra edit

Vish Burra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person clearly does meet WP:Notability (people)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloern (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UWSP Albertson Center for Learning Resources edit

UWSP Albertson Center for Learning Resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not written in an encyclopedic format and fails WP:GNG - all of the sources are primary. If kept, needs significant cleanup. Some of this information may be able to be merged elsewhere, but I'm not sure where. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hunt (journalist) edit

Matt Hunt (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Mlakar edit

Jana Mlakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With only database source listed, the article of this WP:BLP1E#one-time Olympics participant clearly fails WP:GNG. According to Sports Reference results, Mlakar was not in the top three winners of 1984 Winter Olympics. She also never received any medal record. Corresponding article on Slovene Wikipedia is likewise an unsourced stub. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yugoslavia at the Olympics per no medal, no GNG coverage, WP:NOLYMPICS BrigadierG (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are Mlakar Slovenian news hits for Jana Mlakar. The news pieces are about a museum director/cultural heritage worker. Judging from pictures she doesn't resemble Jana Mlakar Adamič, a seemingly notable ethnologist (and museum employee) who was born in 1962 as well, but on 12 January [4] [5]. I would hope that someone can shed light on who these people are, and whether there is a relation to the skier. Geschichte (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She seems to be notable (given the presentation in the podcast mentioned below) but in-depth sources are missing at the moment. The German Wikipedia contains some more information in de:Jana Mlakar and there may be offline newspaper articles that reported on her in more detail. The museum director/cultural heritage worker was born in 1955 (per Cobiss) and Jana Adamič Mlakar seems to be a completely unrelated person as she is from a different region. --TadejM my talk 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, in my honest opinion GNG should be covered with these sources. Will also take a look at some sl/sh sources. A09|(talk) 15:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red rocket (shotgun slug) edit

Red rocket (shotgun slug) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject is a home-made projectile featured in a youtube video. This was picked up in brief articles by HuffPost and Wired during the moral panic about 3D printed guns. However, there is no WP:SUSTAINED or significant coverage other than these two brief, WP:ONE EVENT silly-season articles.

On closer inspection, the 3D printed slugs are just cylinders with a pointy end which could just as easily be carved from a length of plastic, so there's no novel or meritorious engineering involved either (i.e. unlikely to be further papers or coverage beyond what is already linked. A search turned up nothing new) - this article is just about a guy sticking a lump of (quite expensive, laboriously printed) plastic onto the front of a commercially-bought shotgun cartridge and posting it on youtube for lols. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Hemmers (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the article has already been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEDG-TV edit

WEDG-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WXXA-TV: it is mentioned there, as this was a cable-only UPN affiliate that was a joint venture between WXXA and Time Warner Cable. That partnership was basically another one of those "digital subchannels before digital subchannels were much of a thing" deals, and while I'm certain "WEDG"/"UPN4" did get some coverage that does not necessarily mean separate notability (or even the need for a separate page). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with WNYA Like many other WB+ cable stations that went to The CW Plus and digital subchannels in 2006 and beyond, this is effectively the same thing, only involving UPN locally; started life as WEDG on cable, then for all intents and purposes outside the syndication contracts transferred to WXXA, the most important thing in UPN moved over-the-air to channel 51, along with its existing cable 4 position. Nate • (chatter) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with WNYA would be the best solution. TH1980 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just relisting to be sure about Merge target article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czechoslovakia women's junior national softball team edit

Czechoslovakia women's junior national softball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NTEAM because of a lack of coverage from RS. Let'srun (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Spring edit

Shane Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kart edit

Tony Kart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Requested at WP:AN, listed as a courtesy. User:62.165.250.83, please add your deletion rationale below. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOMPANY, may even be considered an ad. - 62.165.250.83 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. And see also Kosmic Kart, which should probably also be included in this AfD. It seems just possible that the parent OTK Kart Group company might meet WP:NCOMPANY, though I doubt it from a quick Google check, but neither article even attempts to demonstrate that the 'brand' is notable. Advertising, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Padamati Union Rahimuddin High School (H.S.) edit

Padamati Union Rahimuddin High School (H.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reliant entirely on primary sources/no evidence of notability. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toko'yoto edit

Toko'yoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Chukchi people. toweli (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gattu Battu edit

Gattu Battu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Squalia edit

Samantha Squalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for mayors. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 -- where the inclusion test hinges not on simple verification of her existence, but on the ability to show a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
But this is of the "she is a mayor who exists, so here's some unsourced background information about her educational and pre-political career credentials" variety with absolutely none of the content about her mayoralty that we require, and is "referenced" solely to her primary source profile on the self-published website of the city council, which is not a notability-building source.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something more substantive and better-sourced than this, but just using the city government's own website to prove that she exists is not how you get a mayor over the wikibar. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trichy Tollgate edit

Trichy Tollgate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely uncoursed, fails WP:NPLACE as I could not find any reliable sources or indication of legal recognition. Hence this appears like mostly WP:ORIGINAL research. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamunu edit

Pamunu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any sources whatsoever, failing WP:GNG. Could be redirected to Govigama, but since there is no coverage of the Pamunu people, I don't see why this should be done. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know enough about this topic space to feel absolutely confident in my recommendations. However, a not-insignificant number of sources appear to use pamunu in a different context, referring to the heritable agricultural land holdings, and not to the sub-caste of people who would work them.[6][7] Further, the Epigraphia Zeylanica is the source given in the article as current. Notwithstanding the problems of using 1930s sources for South Asian topics, the mentions of pamunu in volume 3 seem to fall along the "land holdings" sense and not the "caste" sense. There are some sources that use this term in the sense of this article, but they're generally low-quality, such as self-published books. Arguably the best such source is this paper, and even that includes pamunu only in a list of castes; also, I do not believe the International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education is a high-quality indexed journal and if those caste lists are actually cited to anything at all there, I can't figure out what it would be (there is no reference 11). Lubal (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Waits edit

Justice Waits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article about a book fails general notability and book notability. Of the cited sources, The first is simply a Google Books page nad the second only has a trivial mention of the book on the 6th page. The third article[8] is a promotional article written by the author of the book, which according to WP:BKCRIT doesn't count for notability. Searching the internet for more coverage has turned up nothing but more trivial mentions. GranCavallo (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Student Movements of Greece edit

Independent Student Movements of Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have notability and original research concerns with this article.

I am unable to identify where the collective subject of the page is discussed sufficiently to meet the GNG. This part makes up the introduction of the page. In this section, the article cites to a primary research paper and a master's thesis and then a bunch of primary sources of student organization websites or interviews with organization members about upcoming elections.

Then the article moves to a list of student organizations by section. I doubt this would pass as a WP:NLIST. It variously fails to cite specific things about each student organization from primary sources. It cites at one point the view count from a YouTube video.

The final section is a timeline specific to the "Youth Communist Liberation" organization, not the subject of the page itself.

I want to be clear here, I'm not making an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument here. I'm saying that the contents of this page don't meet the threshold of encyclopedic, it's just WP:SYNTH style OR and that the purported subject of the page, i.e. the topic of Independent Student Movements of Greece, presently fails collective notability and is dressed up by the OR and does not presently meet WP:N

I was in the process of maintenance tagging the article, but combined with the NPOV concerns and the above, I don't presently believe this article is siutable for mainspace. This page has a history of being draftified. I'm not opposed to a draftify ATD. But an approved article should ensure that the contents of the article represent the subject of the article, and that it meets our WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR policies. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s explanations:
Addressing misunderstandings regarding sources:
-Sources 1-2 are indeed research.
- Source 3 is the only available database (at least as far as I am aware of) that covers all years starting from 2004.
- Sources 4-6 are not student websites, these are legitimate (and reasonably popular) Greek news sites! (See “notability part” for more details).
- Sources 8-9 shows that two very popular outlets (See “notability part”) were discussing about the video that the movement posted. Source 7 is the video itself, so that the reader can access it.
- Source 10 proves that the YouTube account that is mentioned in source 11 is indeed the official account of the New Democracy student wing, and source 11 proves that its most popular video has 52,000 views at the moment. (One has to click on “popular” to see it.)
- Source 12 shows the election results for that specific department, and it is visible that the movement was labelled as “other right wing”.
- Source 13 shows that the other independent party got media attention for getting the 1st place in their department elections. It is a valid news website, not a student website.
- Sources 14 and 15 prove that no elections took place in 2020 and 2021.
I see a “failed verification” near source 6. That should not be the case; if someone clicks on the screenshots of that website, he/she should be able to see their agenda. It says “10+1 ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΣ”;  there are a couple of screenshots there that mention everything I have included.
The timeline is not about the Youth Communist Liberation! It only uses their election database because it is the only available source! The timeline is about the independent movements, like the rest of the article.
Beginner question: Could/Should I add Facebook photos as primary sources about the movements? That should clear any doubts.
Regarding notability:
- There is 1 article from Luben.tv (~1,500,000 monthly users) and 1 article from Neopolis.gr (~760,000 monthly users) about the first movement. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luben.tv and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopolis.gr for membership evidence.]
- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr and 1 from e-reportaz.gr about the second movement. These are legitimate news sites in Greece. I do not know the exact number of views they have, but other Greek Wikipedia members can confirm that these sites are legitimate.
- There was 1 article from alfavita.gr regarding the third movement. According to this source, alfavita.gr is one of the most popular news sites in Greece (https://www.e-tetradio.gr/Article/22316/ta-20-koryfaia-enhmerwtika-site-toy-ellhnikoy-internet ) But in any case, it is definitely a legitimate news site.
- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr about the fourth movement.
All of these articles were written in different years.
Apart from this, pages about other university parties already exist in Wikipedia. Like this one, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLOCO
With the same line of argumentation, shouldn’t the Independent Movements have a page as well? After all, their performance in the elections is consistently better than that of Bloco, their real impact is higher.
I am not claiming that this article is a super important piece of information, but still, it fills in a gap. It adds to the knowledge base. It could be useful for those who are interested in Greek university elections.
Regarding neutrality:
- I only listed these 4 specific parties because these are the only ones that have received media attention so far. (Or at least I am not aware of any others that have received media attention. Feel free to add more to the list.) I am by no means trying to promote these 4 movements in particular.
- Regarding the potentially most viewed video, I am just stating facts. The official YouTube account of the New Democracy student wing has no video with more than 52,000 views, while one of the independent parties has a video with 63,000 views. This is an objective statement, I think.
-Regarding the best result up to date (29.9%), I checked the entire database, and I was not able to find any better result. If anyone else is aware of a better result, I will be happy to be corrected.
- The database I am using is the one of the communist student wing. The only reason I am doing it is because there is no other database available though! As far as I am aware of, this is the only database with detailed results since 2004.
Regarding original research:
- The introduction relies on published research.
- The information about each one of the 4 movements comes from reliable media.
- The only “original research” I did was summing “other left”, “other right” and “other” to calculate the total percentage in the Timeline section. Everything else is documented.
These are my 2 drachmas! ( I mean… cents!) I am happy to be corrected, and I am also more than happy to hear suggestions for improvement. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article!
(PS: As the author, my opinion is to KEEP the article.)
ArchidamusIII (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered some data about the media I mentioned:
According to this source https://www.moneyreview.gr/society/13952/kathimerines-ekdoseis-kai-neolaia-gr-mazi/, neolaia.gr had 1,000,000 monthly visitors and had published more than 110,000 articles in 2021.
According to this source, neolaia.gr has 900,000 monthly visitors and 4,500,000 page views in May 2014. https://www.advertising.gr/advertising-2/paramedia/rekor-episkepseon-gia-to-neolaia-gr-55244/
Regarding alfavita.gr, this source ranked it 5th in 2020: https://edessaikoskosmos.gr/eidisis/poia-einai-ta-megalytera-eidiseografika-site-se-episkepsimotita-stin-ellada/
I am not claiming that these sources are 100% reliable and that the numbers are 100% accurate, but we are definitely talking about serious media that have an impact in Greece. There are not student websites, these are serious nationwide media. (The same applies to Luben.tv and Neopolis.gr as explained earlier.)
ArchidamusIII (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Austrian Open edit

2024 Austrian Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

$5000 tournament at bwf international level which doesn't meet the notability criteria WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:NBAD. The only notable ones which get enough coverage in notable websites are World Tour tournaments.

Moreover the tournament winners are already mentioned here in Austrian International page as each of those editions can't be created on their own due to notability issue.zoglophie•talk• 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was unable to find non-primary sources. ✶Quxyz✶ 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – As WP:ATD. The event is ongoing and the article was recently created, if there are more sources they can be added accordingly. Svartner (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manels edit

Manels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unsourced nothing. There was a bit more in it, none of it sourced, which I removed. I'm not good at WP:BEFORE, but I couldn't even find a website for the company, just lots of other websites selling their stuff. Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declan McDonnell edit

AfDs for this article:
Declan McDonnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was a discussion in 2011, but I think views on this generally may have developed. The sources don’t indicate WP:GNG and WP:NPOL/WP:NSUBPOL. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Mayor could be notable, but I don't see much coverage of that position he held; [9] is typical of what I find, reporting on the goings-on of the city council, nothing to help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of mayors of Galway. As an WP:ATD. (As noted, subject's main claim to notability is as mayor of Galway. And is otherwise, albeit sitting quite a bit longer than other councillors, covered to the same degree as other local politicians/reps. However, outright deletion seems a bit drastic. As most notability is tied with the main office he held, I'd just redirect there.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Bluebird Aviation crash edit

2020 Bluebird Aviation crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline with no significant coverage, barely any secondary sources with not much verifiability since the accident lacks sustained continued coverage, which in turn also fails WP:EVENTCRIT. The accident has not demonstrated any lasting effects with a lack of in-depth coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted per WP:G3‎. . (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malabanias Integrated School edit

Malabanias Integrated School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined and rejected at WP:AFC it fails WP:NSCHOOL. Theroadislong (talk) 13:22, 6 June 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.

Donbas separatism edit

Donbas separatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was translated from the Russian Wikipedia, but it was later deleted there per the Wikipedia:No original research policy. See ru:Википедия:К удалению/25 ноября 2015#Донбасский сепаратизм. Aldij (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KWCC-LD edit

KWCC-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KXPD-LP edit

KXPD-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; some references are dead links. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KWEM-LP (Oklahoma) edit

KWEM-LP (Oklahoma) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musk family edit

AfDs for this article:
Musk family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Request to turn into Redirect to Musk (Disambiguation).

Article fails to demonstrate the notability of the "Musk Family" as an organisation or group, instead it is clearly serving as little more than a duplication of the existing disambiguation page. The short history section may have reliable sourcing but it is very blatantly written in terms of only Elon Musk and no-one else, and looks to be a cut down version of what's on his article's page which arguably evidences the lack of notability of the family as a whole.

Therefore the page should be turned into a redirect to the Disambiguation page until such a time noteworthiness of the family is established. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rol Naath edit

Rol Naath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no reliable sources which refer to the place or term "Rol Naath". It may need to be renamed, e.g. Nuer Nation, but is it a nation? The sources included in the article do not seem to mention Rol Naath, but I do not have full access to the offline soures. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MSGJ Rol Naath is the Nuer people's home in South Sudan just like Igboland, Yorubaland in Nigeria to name a few. Nuer Nation is an English translation of what the name means. To your question "Is it a nation?", According to the dictionary, a Nation is a body of people having a common descent, history, culture, or language but without a separate or politically independent territory. It doesn't necessarily mean an independent country. Sovereignty is a different thing.
Rol Naath is part of South Sudan. South Sudan is comprised of 64 different ethnic groups and each of these groups has its own land with its name. You can't just nominate an article for deletion just because you don't know what the title means and even after reading through the article. This Nuer people are one of the most studied people in Africa by anthropologists. Please read The Nuer, The Nuer conquest, The Nuer religion, The Nuer Nation, Bok in Yel, Wut Naath, few of many reliable sources that back up this article.
To address your concern about renaming the article, according to Wikipedia:Article titles, The title must indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. Rol Naath is what the article is about, the land of Nuer People within South Sudan and some part of Ethiopia. The title should not be the translation of what the article is about. The translations in both Arabic and English are already within the article. Gatwech Gai (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, etc. (exhibition) edit

Hell, etc. (exhibition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The article presently only links to fan webpages, with the exception of one brief article in Greek. toweli (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Keane edit

Michelle Keane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This candidate has not achieved general notability. The one reference here to a national newspaper (article on Michael Healy-Rae visiting a mosque) doesn’t mention Keane. Otherwise, I don’t see that mentions of Keane in Radio Kerry, satisfy WP:NPOL or WP:SIGCOV. Most local election candidates could muster up some passing mention in local press. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fox (musician) edit

Steve Fox (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and non-notable. No WP:RS that I can find. — Iadmc♫talk  09:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Canada. — Iadmc♫talk  09:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The charted singles help with notability, but this was in the pre-internet era, have to dig around the archives to find sourcing... Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Didn't chart high enough to get critical attention here in Canada, tried several newspaper archives and there is nothing about this person. Nothing in the Wikipedia Library either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Falah Party edit

Pakistan Falah Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this party has ever won any provincial or federal-level elections, nor has it received sig/in-depth coverage in RS, thus it fails to meet the WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dana (payment service) edit

Dana (payment service) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion (e.g. ISO 27001 Certification and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Certificate...) no sources to meet NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article not to promote but is it allowed if I change the information so that it doesn't seem like an advertisement? You can find information about Dana (payment service) Badak Jawa (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BoraVoroif I find your decision to give a deletion tag very odd because it should be after a few minutes or a few days after the article was created Badak Jawa (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
half a year isn't enough? BoraVoro (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BoraVoro and @Wcquidditch After I took another look at the article, it seemed to be indirectly promotional, so the article deserved to be deleted. It was my fault for creating the article without citing credible sources and I also recognized most of the references were promotional after I googled them Badak Jawa (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Looking at the sources provided on the page and Dana was on the top 5 as the most popular e-wallet apps in Indonesia in 2019,[1] the company is notable enough to meet WP:NCORP. Additionaly, the app is popular among Gen-Z Indonesians and used by 115 million users.[2][3] Concerning the article is too promotional, I have removed those advertorial content. Faldi00 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Also as one of top 5 mobile wallet in Indonesia according to 2022 report. It's not difficult to look up independent source or even academic publication on DANA, so it should pass NCORP. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jakarta Post, Jakarta Post. "The top five e-wallet apps in Indonesia". thejakartapost.com. Jakarta Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.
  2. ^ Liu, Meng. "DANA Is Popular Among Generation Z In Indonesia". forrester.com. Forrester. Retrieved 4 June 2024.
  3. ^ Zahra, Valina. "Top 10 must-have fintech apps and services in Indonesia". indonesiabusinesspost.com. Indonesia Business Post. Retrieved 4 June 2024.
  • Keep: The tone has been improved, and on 2023 it reached 170 million users, so it should pass NCORP. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 00:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The three sources above show that the payment system is notable, I'm ok with the sources, notability is met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Medical Solutions edit

Rising Medical Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable coverage to meet GNG /NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3D animation software edit

List of 3D animation software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability/usefulness not demonstrated. Just a list of licenses of softwares. Greatder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Software, and Lists. Greatder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This list fails WP:NLIST as we cannot say that the list deserves to exist per the article's first sentence, "this is a list of 3D animation apps that have articles on Wikipedia". Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you link something that literally contradicts what you said? Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid navigational list. More useful than a category since more information is shown. It is useful if you want to see a list of all the software of this type, and be able to sort it by its type of license to find what you are looking for. Additional information could be added, a column showing what year it became available, another column listing if its still being developed and if not just list when the last update was, etc. Dream Focus 16:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The mere fact that all of these have a Wikipedia page makes it a valid list under WP:LISTPURP. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Team Outer Banks edit

Team Outer Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ostensibly a team in a sailing competition, or possibly two unrelated teams of the same name. Not notable, no independent references, some of this is indistinguishable from vandalism. Walsh90210 (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foot in Mouth (EP) edit

Foot in Mouth (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Appears to have not charted or been covered by reliable sources - May be some Japanese coverage, but difficult to locate. Mdann52 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Day discography#Extended plays: None of the coverage in the article is from reliable sources, and I found no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Japanese title is Bakuhatsu Live! +5 and charted at number 45 on the Oricon Albums Chart. I wasn't able to find much in the way of reviews, but I admittedly only made a surface-level check (爆発ライブ!+5, if anyone wants to search further for sources). IanTEB (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc. edit

Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating following PROD and refund request. Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Appears to mainly cite primary sources, with none sustaining a claim to notability. Various searches are struggling to turn up anything. Mdann52 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company went through a few name changes: first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-merger-of-their-two-companies/
The company's patent on split band filtering was a foundational patent in on frequency repeaters for cellular mobile radio. It is cited by 36 other patents, see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783843A/en Rabcfi (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LEDA 1026855 edit

LEDA 1026855 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO, isn't present on the NGC catalog or any other notable catalog, I couldn't find any information on the web either. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 05:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. hamster717 (discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs) 19:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1's (video) edit

Number 1's (video) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet GNG. Heartfox (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no additional coverage myself. Certs are the only part that meet NALBUM, but those could be added to a new section of Mariah Carey albums discography (which I'm surprised isn't already there). There is a one-sentence mention in Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)#Other songs; not enough that I would consider it a valid redirect target, especially since readers looking for this article will probably end up there anyway, but it's an option if anyone else wants to argue for it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaharkaray edit

Shivaharkaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS. As per criteria 6 and 7 of WP:DEL-REASON—it appears this place does not even exist. Completely imaginary! Jovian Eclipse 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: This edit from the Hinglaj Mata Temple page by a sockpuppet account predates the Tribune article by years and simply by looking at the lead, I think it is pretty obvious that the author has plagiarized from Wikipedia. I have particularly highlighted that edit because it was the precisely the one establishing for the first time that there are three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan. Older revisions have two. I would also like to make another point that this supposedly revered pilgrimage site not only has absolutely zero visitor accounts in the internet era, but no picture of it is available anywhere. It does not even receive the slightest mention in the books of scholars on Shaktism, who have otherwise produced detailed works on both Hinglaj and Sharada. Jovian Eclipse 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity edit

AfDs for this article:
List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing has substantially improved, and the issue is still that this a list of trivia. Indeed, having looked up Loose Cannons by Graeme Donald, which was cited in the last discussion, I find that its subtitle is "101 Myths, Mishaps, And Misadventures Of Military History". In other words, it is a book of military trivia, and I note that Mental Floss is cited in the article. The whole premise is questionable, particularly in these days of mostly undeclared warfare, and the inclusion criteria don't match the members. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is well-sourced and (IMO) an important enough topic to keep. This isn't a policy rationale, but we built encyclopedias to be useful and I enjoyed reading it, and was sad to see it up for deletion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the previous AFD discussion; a renaming of the article (and) a clear definition of scope would still be helpful. But these "ceremonial unofficial peace treaties" do seem to be discussed enough to be in a list article. Walsh90210 (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonably well sourced article that asserts its claim to notability even if the topic is a bit silly. This may be a situation where we could delete the article by invoking the rules disfavoring lists, but we shouldn't do it as the article is, as @The Quirky Kitty points out, enjoyable to read and as @Walsh90210 says the category gets enough discussion as a category to satisfy WP:NLIST.
    The deletion rationale is hard to discern from the nomination. However, (a) the objection that the Donald book has trivia in its title doesn't make it a non-reliable source, and (b) the idea that wars are largely undeclared today is a non sequitur and perhaps strengthens the case since it becomes more of a closed-membership list of declarations of war without a corresponding cessation.
    The article suffers from lack of hard inclusion criteria. I'm not convinced that the great Berwick-upon-Tweed vs. Russia war or even Carthage v Rome constitutes an extension of war rather than possible grounds to claim the war was extended, but that could be sorted out later. Oblivy (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo stitching software edit

Comparison of photo stitching software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Everything is either unsourced or reliant exclusively on primary sources discussing individual pieces of software to paint a picture that no source explicitly makes AKA performing improper synthesis. Additionally inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. Compare Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software, which I find convincing to this day and appears to be just as relevant. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is full of WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Should be called list of photo stitching software, it listing valid information about things on the list in the various columns, with some columns that perhaps shouldn't be there. But the vast majority of things in this list article do not have any articles for them. Category:Photo stitching software shows 17 total. Those could easily fit in Image_stitching#Software. Dream Focus 21:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ultimately, Wikipedia is a website that combines features of many other types of websites; did Diderot's Encyclopédie have a list of LOST episodes? Of course not, but we do. Yes, yes, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I'm well acquainted with all of the policies in question; but at the end of the day these policies exist for a reason, and the reason is to create a website that meaningfully informs its readers. For sixteen years this article has done that, quite well. If we look at policies like WP:NOT you can see that they were not intended to simply purge articles on the basis of not being "serious enough" (i.e. WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written to include articles consisting of Android and Chrome version histories). If this is cruft, then God bless cruft. jp×g🗯️ 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion about sourcing. What did anything you wrote have anything to do with sourcing? HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is a discussion about whether an article titled "comparison of photo stitching software" should exist on the English Wikipedia.
    What kind of "sourcing" do you think we need for the claim that Adobe Lightroom is proprietary and not open-source? Do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? What basis is there to think that?
    The topic of comparing photo-stitching software is obviously notable and many people care about it. Here are some articles about it that I found after searching for about ten seconds:
    People who are on the Internet looking for information (i.e. the people that this website actually exists to serve) are obviously interested in this subject, and it is not only possible but very easy for us to maintain high-quality well-sourced information for them. We do not need a long-form thinkpiece from The Atlantic to do this: we just need to cite reliable information about photo-stitching software. Adobe's website is a reasonable citation for how much Adobe's software costs. The thing being demanded here -- that somebody find a New York Times article or something listing how much Adobe Lightroom subscriptions cost, and then cite that instead of Adobe's website -- is unnecessary, unreasonable and likely impossible.

    The idea that we should destroy this information is both inexplicable and infuriating, and when people have told me they no longer enjoy using Wikipedia as a resource, about eight times out of ten it happened after watching large amounts of neutral reliably-sourced material disappear forever because somebody found it aesthetically distasteful. jp×g🗯️ 00:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had. Most of the sources you listed are either not credible or don't make any meaningful comparison between software offerings, as they are essentially listings. It's notability is not obvious at all to me, and that's nothing to say of the original research in the original article, and to say that we only need to find citations for one small portion of the article is a very rose-tinted view. I'm sorry to hear that you're infuriated by this AfD, but this article should be deleted. It's not about aesthetics, it's about policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is about policy -- WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are policy. Again: do you actually think Adobe's own website is incorrect? Why?

    Of course Adobe's website is not a reliable source for "Lightroom is the best and easiest-to-use software ever", but it's a reliable source for "Lightroom has a stitching mode for fisheye lenses", which is indeed what we're citing to it.

    These sources -- again, they are from the first page of a Web search, I could certainly find more if I actually went to the library -- are obviously not canonical listings of the best photo stitching software packages, they're evidence of this being a notable subject that people have a consistent and strong interest in. If you really want evidence that evaluating and comparing types of panoramic stitching software is a subject that's been given proper scholarly treatment by serious people with graduate degrees, I can also do a quick publication search.
    jp×g🗯️ 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those articles, ironically, describe how to stitch images without the use of the software programs listed in the article. Those sources might look authoritative, but they only cover image stitching as a general technique, for which we already have an article for. In fact, the existence of these sources are a reason to delete this article, because it shows that people tend to avoid buying expensive subscriptions for photo stitching programs in favor of DIY solutions. And again, that's nothing to say of the mountains of original research and synthesis in the original article. Tunneling on one specific use of one primary source misses the bigger picture that the nominator and two other delete votes have painted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The original research could be hypothetically cleaned up, but we'd need reliable sources that make meaningful comparisons between photo stitching software in order to preserve the article. I've found a couple self-published articles, but nothing that I would consider reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Bhatija (TV series) edit

Chacha Bhatija (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Metcalfe (musician) edit

Tim Metcalfe (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-authored Wikipedia about a non-notable musician. Half of the references on the page don't even mention him, and the ones that do only make a single passing mention of his involvement in some non-notable experimental indie band. The only substantial and reliable source I can find talking about him in any depth is this but, other than that, crickets. Elspamo4 (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matching person and technology model edit

Matching person and technology model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability and quality issues. The article was created by a single-purpose account in 2009. None of the content is sourced, the "general" references are generally about "assistive technology" or are by MJ Scherer, the creator of this model. Google Scholar has about 3 results not associated with Scherer, which use this as background.

None of the current content should be merged to assistive technology, so I have not unilaterally redirected the article. However, if there is sourced content to include there, I am not opposed to that redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 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, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus Life edit

Abacus Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NCORP - coverage seems to be routine at best with a few promotional pieces thrown in. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unambiguous promotional spam, can't find any good sources BrigadierG (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff School of Engineering edit

Cardiff School of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence school is particularly notable outside notability of university DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardiff University - Departments are almost never notable. BrigadierG (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Syrians edit

Italian Syrians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn’t really a topic here. Specifically there is nothing here to suggest that there is a current or recent community of Syrians of Italian heritage. The article discusses Romans of Syrian origins (off topic), then the arrival of Livorno Jews (should be merged into History of the Jews in Syria, and the rest is anecdote and a section copy-pasted from Italy–Syria relations to fill out the article and make it look like an actual topic. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed a similar page, which is Italians in Lebanon, the name is different yes, but the page literally doesn’t define anything. Most sources aren’t accessible anymore and the source I can access is the Vinivest 2011? I know this isn’t the time to compare. But, what should the page by about if not Romans of Syrian descent and the history of both countries and the arrivals of the Italian Jews to Syria? I see no reason for all this, and suggest removing it. 2001:8F8:1473:5EF2:848C:A013:291F:7463 (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge arrival of Livorno Jews into History of the Jews in Syria then Delete as per nom. Gjs238 (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La guerra civile edit

La guerra civile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is very odd. It started life as what appears to be a personal essay/content fork about Italian politics (entirely sourced to La guerra civile) under the title Terrorism in Italy since 1945, then at some point someone misinterpreted the content as about the book itself and content about that book introduced and the essay stuff removed, so for the past 13 years it's been about the book, but under the original title. I tried to find sources under that title, failed for 20 minutes, realized what happened, and moved the page.

Anyway, still can't find any reviews/analysis/sources. It's probable they may exist given the language barrier and very generic title, but I couldn't find any. If sufficient sources are presented I can withdraw. As an ATD if there are no sources redirect to the author Giovanni Pellegrino. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Music company edit

Switch Music company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a defunct instrument company that didn't make much of an impact. The only sources are a Youtube video, a product catalog PDF, and a fan forum - and that's after a user contested my PROD and looked for sources. Google News returns nothing. A search of Guitar World also comes up empty. A search for one of their guitars only returns some sales listings. Seems non-notable. Mbinebri (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Zanahary (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage for this instrument maker. Being defunct, I doubt we'll find much of anything at this point in time; what's used in the article for sourcing isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm sorry, there was a deletion tag on the Switch Music company page that explicitly stated that : "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."
So, I have edited the article, removed the deletion tag, so how come it's up for deletion again although this was explicitly discouraged in the deletion tag?
I have also expressed reasons to retain (Keep) this article in the article's talk page, which I'll reiterate here: "Hi, I think that the subject of this article is relevant and interesting as Switch was one of the few companies using plastic rather than wood on a guitar body, equally it was manufactured by injection molding rather than carpentry. Although this was successful in terms of acoustic quality, and although the instruments were attractively priced, the company failed commercially. We can't link to the company website as it has ceased to exist. On the other hand this also means that this article can't be intended as marketing or to build company credibility. The information here is referenced by the creators best as we can given that there isn't much in the way of academic literature, which kinda comes with the territory. I have also added some inline references as requested by the deletion-proposer."
I'm saddened that an improper shotgun policy is being used where the article will be brought up for deletion multiple times until it finally is deleted. Maikel (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maikel, if you know of reliable, independent, secondary sources that might establish notability, please mention them here before this discussion is closed. That is what editors are looking for. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the only sources are one user thread and their catologue. I can find nothing at all via the standard searches. Nowhere good enough for WP:RS. "Vibracell guitar" might just warrent an article, though, if sources other than marketing can be found. However, there is the article Luthite, which is a similar product, but it also requires far more sources. Maybe relevent material could be moved over to that article once it has been proven WP:notable and properly sourced? So possible merge. What's in this present article feels like WP:promotion for the guitars (which are still very much available) though.— Iadmc♫talk  03:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Chain edit

Mr. Chain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company fails WP:NCORP. While several articles cited here provide significant coverage beyond trivial mentions, they are all in highly local publications (the Manistee News and the Traverse City Record-Eagle). Under NCORP, "Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town)... is not an indication of notability." A BEFORE search turns up no additional qualifying sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. I think there should be more in newspaper archives - this company is very notable in its particular niche and most of the innovative things done by this company were in pre-internet era (it was founded in 1960). Nienders (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:BURDEN is on the editor proposing material to prove notability; can you supply the newspaper citations? I searched archive sites in my BEFORE search but I only found local media coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 18:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the local newspaper of Traverse City should be considered reliable and independent, but much of the news is mundane coverage. 14:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that the Traverse City paper should be considered reliable and independent. But under WP:AUD, that's not all that's required. Significant coverage in "media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability. Attention 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. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." I think the debate is whether the paper serving Traverse City (population 15,000) is "local media"; I think it is, which is why I nominated the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This was all I can pull up [11], interesting bit of trivia, but not enough for NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Smash Invitational edit

Bermuda Smash Invitational (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC, and WP:EVENT. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Amin edit

AfDs for this article:
Jana Amin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of an activist, deleted at AfD in January and immediately recreated. Notability is not evident to me at all, as the article is a collection of activities which are run of the mill. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (with small potential Wikipedia:CONFLICT) as I said in previous discussion. The recreated article removed non-notable information and sources to address previous reasons for deletion, so "it was deleted before" is insufficient reason: this is a new article that should be judged on its own merits, but I still believe the subject has established notability due especially to articles about her in non-English sources. There is a danger of underrepresentation due to Wikipedia:Systemic bias if we insist on more notable English-language sources without recognising the Egyptian coverage as notable. Also, the previous deletion occurred just 8 hours after a single extra delete vote was placed after 3 relistings, so I believed that immediately recreating the article in a form that addressed the reasons for deletion was justified. With regard to Jana's activities being "run of the mill", correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability is that it's not up to us editors to judge whether or not a subject's activities are extraordinary in their own right, but merely to summarise what sources are saying if the sources meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and notability. Hence the question should not be "did Jana do something worthy of a Wikipedia article" but "are sources giving Jana coverage that is worthy of a Wikipedia article". (My possibly-biased opinion happens to be that the answer to both questions is "yes" but if we're supposed to focus on the second then no need to argue about the first.) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not suggesting we need English language sources. We need in depth coverage in independent sources in any language. The piece in Elle is an interview where she talks about herself, as is the piece in Marie Claire. Two other sources are authored by her. Now This News is a passing mention. Some of the others have a strong whiff of PR placements. They tell us she works for an NGO, did a TED talk, and attended a lecture by Malala Yousefzai. She hasn’t received a well-known and significant award or honor, or been nominated for such an award several times; or made a widely recognized contribution in a specific field, and isn’t in a Dictionary of National Biography. So what exactly is notable about her? Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply If someone is interviewed by a source, then the fact that the source decided to interview the person might in itself confer notability if that source does not interview just anybody. So I don't think we should dismiss interviews just because they are interviews without also asking the question: how difficult is it to get an interview in that publication? I'm imagining it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia for example. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 07:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the one interview isn't in Arabic, English, or French, all of which are spoken in Egypt, so I'm not sure what using an Italian source has to do with Egypt... Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I wasn't commenting on the Italian source. I was commenting on the Egyptian Streets article and the Marie Claire Arabia article, which are in English and Arabic respectively. Whether these articles also count as "interviews" depends on exactly how you define an "interview", but either way my point was that getting published in Egyptian Streets and in Marie Claire Arabia seems notable to me. My point is wrong if it can be shown that these publications have a low acceptance standard of what they document, but I don't think that's the case. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Again? Same sources as last time, a TED talk and an interview don't make you notable here... As for the systemic bias, you're actually hurting the standards by using such low quality sources, thereby contributing ot the bias (oh, we'll give this one a "pass"). Still having a lack of sources and nothing we can use to create the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply As mentioned above, I believe it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia. And not exactly the same sources as last time: I deleted some of the weaker ones and added in a couple more. That's why I think it should be re-evaluated on its merits in its current state. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to judge the notability of activists by similar merits as I judge the notability of businesspeople, because there are similar incentives as it relates to coverage and they're both prone to PROMO for the same reasons. None of the coverage of this individual is WP:INDEPENDENT. There is zero critical coverage of this individual, honestly most of these interviews if you changed some of the subject words could be straight off of someone's LinkedIn page. Profiles are not good evidence of notability because of their dependence and frequent aggrandisement of their subject. BrigadierG (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I believe that at least Mirna Khaled Sayed's article in Egyptian Streets and Cynthia Sukkar's Arabic article in Marie Claire Arabia are both WP:INDEPENDENT. That policy page does say "independence does not imply even-handedness". Jana was 17 at the time, and it's understandable that two newspapers reporting on an underage female activist might choose to be supportive, so unless we have evidence that Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia are both in the habit of running promotional pieces disguised as independent articles, I think we do have here one or two independent, albeit supportive, articles. It is possible that Jana's young age was part of her notability at the time; Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time so if someone was notable for being reported as a teenage activist then they are now notable for (at the very least) being formerly reported as a teenage activist even if their more recent activities as an adult activist were to fail notability. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be possible for somebody to add a second opinion specifically on the two articles I mentioned? as currently I'm thinking people are saying "oh, nothing notable here" and not noticing those two. Thanks. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 18:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJournalish edit

TheJournalish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "this journal is endorsed and ranked by the Ministry of Research Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (as already cited). Why would that not demonstrate notability?" This apparently refers to current ref. 3, but that database (SINTA) does not appear to be very selective and therefore fails both NJournals and GNG. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indonesia publishes dozens of academic journals,[12] and for some reason the first one documented on Wikipedia gets PROD and AFD within days. Why is that? I can't see why the endorsement of the journal by the government would not establish notability. (See [13], the Director-General of Strengthening Research and Development, Ministry of Research Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia, Decree Number 105/M/KPT/2022.) The journal has been published for less than four years, but has more than 300 incoming citations according to Google Scholar.[14] Does this not clearly meet C2 of WP:JOURNALCRIT? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry, but 300 citations is rather pathetic, even for a new journal. Also, it appears that every journal published in Indonesia gets into Sinta, so that is not really a ringing endorsement. C2 is most certainly not met. As for why this got PRODded and then taken to AfD: I patrol all new articles on academic journals and if they appear not to be notable, I propose them for deletion. Nothing nefarious here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:JOURNALCRIT doesn't give a quantitative guideline, just that subjective one. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because different fields have different citation densities. But even n a low-citation density field is 300 citations after 4 years not very impressive and certainly not enough for C2.
  • Delete SINTA is not embraced by the government, it's just classification/accrediation system for Indonesian journals. Being indexed by SINTA is basically just meant "this journal exist" the same way school accrediation exist Nyanardsan (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I had to close this based on the discussion so far, it would be to delete. However, more discussion genuinely would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Student Network Armenia edit

Erasmus Student Network Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local branch of Erasmus Student Network, no independent notability. Broc (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Working on expanding the article. ESN Armenia is quite active and one of the more notable student organizations within the country. English publications may be limited as most of the content referencing the org is in Armenian. Will continue to expand with refs. Any help is appreciated :) Archives908 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a subsection of Erasmus Student Network. I do not think it is bad that the information is out there if verifiable and noteworthy enough to mention specifically, though ESN Armenia is hardly notorious enough to warrant their own WP article, considering that there are 44 national, and even more regional ESN network organisations. Note also that Erasmus Student Network Yerevan has also been created, and would merit the same treatment. --Konanen (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge this and Erasmus Student Network Yerevan into Erasmus Student Network. I can't find anything much other than social media or links to information and event involving the umbrella organisation in a search (including the sources in the article that I can read/translate), which suggests this is a local organisation not warranting it's own article. I note that none of the other national organisations have their own article, including ESN Russia and ESN UK, for example.— Iadmc♫talk  03:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai edit

AfDs for this article:
Yuri Lushchai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.
I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is his biography in the source listed.
There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has enough prose, there is biography, death and legacy section. It could have been nominated for RD had it been in the same state back then. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Cintron edit

Veronica Cintron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vice President of Communications for the Tampa Airport, winner of multiple small awards doesn't establish WP:GNG for this article subject. In my BEFORE, I could only find mentions related to her work at the airport. The Emmy awards might be notable but they were regional and I wasn't prepared to watch a video to see if this claim was verified. Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought there would be more coverage of her time as a news anchor, but apparently not. BrigadierG (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supersci edit

Supersci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated by an IP user: Non-notable group, going by available sources. Both with its current ("Supersci") and its former ("Superscientifiku") name, the group is mentioned on some Swedish websites, but with very few exceptions (e.g. Sundsvalls Tidning) either these sources are non-reliable, or the subject is mentioned only in passing. GrabUp - Talk 18:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011, their "Timelines" was nominated (again, did not win) at the sv:P3 Guld. Example sources, at Sveriges Television here, and at Sveriges Radio P3 here. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added three different sources that provide significant coverage. The article meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can’t check offline sources, but linked sources are not WP:SIGCOV.
  • 1st source: Are only sayings of connected ones of the subject, no in-depth coverage of the subject.
  • 4rth source: Nomination list of the award P3, I don’t know how much this award is notable. GrabUp - Talk 04:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1st source: I see what you mean, though the offline sources are more independent of the subject.
    4th source: The nomination doesn't confer notability, but I thought it was worth mentioning since it was brought up in the AfD. AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the third source (or at least an article about the same thing by the same author) online, so added it to the article if you want to take a look. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further evaluation of added sources would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Sources and added sources since nom shows notability at least per WP:NMUSIC at this time. I say Weak Keep. BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Akhtar edit

Najma Akhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Dowrylauds (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Koumbios edit

Michalis Koumbios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is not notable. There are few (if any) reliable secondary sources; the single source used is apparently from 2006 and only available through archive.is. LoganP25 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Campbell edit

Georgie Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT; subject is notable only for passing away. As this is a recent death, WP:BLP1E should probably apply here. See also WP:PSEUDO. Firestar464 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a WP:BLP1E with little chance of WP:LASTING BrigadierG (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that as a top level 5* rider and on Team GB for FEI Nations Cup on multiple occasions she was already WP:NSPORT relevant, and lack of previous article probably more reflective of the overall poor coverage of equestrian sport on WP. Suggest that there should be enough for an article. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are achievement standards set out for equestrian sports at WP:NEQUESTRIAN - generally, a medal is required to be notable, not just participation. BrigadierG (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from this AfD, they were only ever guidelines but it was my understanding that WP:NSPORT, within which WP:NEQUESTRIAN falls, had been abandoned in favour of general WP:GNG notability, in-part so as to avoid the proliferation of single sourced historic competitors in favour of properly sourced, judged-on-their-own-merits, robust articles. A process which has clear merits, and without inbuilt asymmetry of certain sports having literally thousands of active competitors with WP:BLP articles and other sports granted three medalists at a time. If you permit a further example of the difficulties of the guidelines and how they could be perceived as a barrier to the collation of information; WP:RU/N had the criteria of only the semifinalists from the Women's World Cup, a tournament which takes place once every four years. However, in the pandemic the tournament was postponed for 18 months so a strict interpretation of the guidelines (which I saw being argued) would have no new 15-a-side female rugby union players permissible for over five and a half years. A hindrance to WP as an up-to-date information source, which an online encyclopaedia should have the capacity to excel at. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this person is only notable for passing then they fail the notability test, unless proven otherwise. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed the article about her husband, and put up an AfD for that as well. Posting here as this would've been bundled had I noticed them at the same time. Firestar464 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That AfD nomination was a dumb move as her husband is clearly notable, and bundling the two bios would have thus been a very bad move indeed. Schwede66 03:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article satisfies WP:GNG. Not uncommon to gain information from obituaries. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I started this article on a distinguished equestrian. Strange to see that the article on her husband was also AfD. This page has been expanded on since I started it. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get an evaluation of additions to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freddrick Jackson edit

Freddrick Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PERP, WP:NOTNEWS - I can't see that there's likely to be unusual or lasting coverage regarding this murderer. BrigadierG (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NOTNEWS, killing four people isn't terribly notable in the US. Some coverage, but it's simply retelling the facts of a crime. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is notable due to his young age at the time of his crimes not the victim count as he has to be the youngest serial killer in Arkansas history. Startrain844 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And NONE of the sources use the term "serial killer", nor can I find mention of this anywhere. I wonder if this is OR or some wishful thinking... Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is a serial killer because he committed the murders of three or more people, with the killings taking place over a significant period of time between them.[1][2]Startrain844 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's original research; you can't create an article using that term when no one else has called him that. This effectively shames and degrades the individual, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of serial killers on Wikipedia had no lasting coverage on news. Startrain844 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate any other articles that don't meet guidelines here. Again, they are serial killers as the media addresses them as such; this individual hasn't been called that in media. He's just another criminal, CRIME notability applies here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Murdered four people on different days over two years. Plenty of coverage. Meets WP:GNG. This effectively shames and degrades the individual, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Yes, how dare we "shame and degrade" a convicted multiple murderer by calling him a serial killer (which is much, much worse than being a multiple murderer, apparently)! Poor little chap! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sea Derby edit

Red Sea Derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to be a notable football rivalry. The references are generally about the country's relations, not football. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing in the article or a Google search does anything to establish these teams as rivalries. All discuss relations between the two countries (unrelated to football), or WP:ROUTINE coverage of the two football teams. Frank Anchor 14:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOSTATS, I've never heard of the Red Sea Derby, and Derby is a very English term. Besides this being just a head to head, I don't even know where the term came from? WP:OR? Govvy (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durie Kallahal edit

Durie Kallahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Article does not have notability, according to WP:POLITICIAN, a politician is not notable when him/her position is lower than Congressman/Congresswoman, I don't see WP:GNG notability either. TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Serial murder". Britannica. Retrieved 2024-04-22.
  2. ^ an offender can be anyone.
    • Holmes & Holmes 1998, Serial murder is the killing of three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a significant cooling-off period between the murders The baseline number of three victims appears to be most common among those who are the academic authorities in the field. The time frame also appears to be an agreed-upon component of the definition.
    • Petherick 2005, p. 190 Three killings seem to be required in the most popular definition of serial killing since they are enough to provide a pattern within the killings without being overly restrictive.
    • Flowers 2012, p. 195 in general, most experts on serial murder require that a minimum of three murders be committed at different times and usually different places for a person to qualify as a serial killer.
    • Schechter 2012, p. 73 Most experts seem to agree, however, that to qualify as a serial killer, an individual has to slay a minimum of three unrelated victims.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1162720113"