Wikipedia

User:Ijey6458/2 days ago

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 6

< July 05 July 07 >

Purge server cache

Dobley missile strike

edit
Dobley missile strike (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)

Redirect to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). One of hundreds of airstrikes conducted in Somalia. Fails WP:GNG to stand on its own. Sourcing is routine news coverage and not WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - This is the only Tommahawk missile strike to have occurred during the Somali civil war, it therefore is clearly notable enough to stand on its own.XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ederies Arendse

edit
Ederies Arendse (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)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment - The link you gave is dead and my attempt at saving it broke the Wayback Machine. TheWikiToby (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. Fails GNG. C F A 💬 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
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.

Milton Owor

edit
Milton Owor (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 the chair of a rotary club who is also a successful HR professional. I don’t see anything here to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This article should be retained because of the following reasons;

Asking ourselves questions
If we were to determine notability using the criteria that you have followed then we would be asking our selves;
  • Is Denis Toussaint Lesage is also notable or not? He was a successful deputy of his time
  • What is so special about that president of a certain country as there has been more presidents before him that have done great things?
  • What makes that CEO notable as their are people who have done what he has done.As in he founded a company but their are big companies than what he founded, etc

  • Does one being a member of a certain club, association or secret organisation make that person notable?
But according to the;
He is not just a HR professional at the NSSF Uganda, not everyone can be in that position. But he also won a top HR award in Uganda for his profession. B722N (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It’s true that New Vision and Daily Monitor mention him, but neither piece is in depth coverage of him and does not contribute in any way to demonstrating notability. Everything else we have for sourcing us either from organisations associated with the subject, or a non-notable award. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
One of the biggest challenges faced by African Wikipedians is getting in-depth references that talk about people they are writing about. Most of the content in the newspapers and books is just a paragraph or a sentence. Very few Ugandans have books written about them or entire newspaper pages dedicated to them.

I request that you check most of the Ugandan Wikipedia articles and check whether their references have entire pages dedicated to the people that have been written about. Most of that information comes from their personal or company websites which are mostly not written with Neutral Point of View. And then the information from those websites is backed up with those paragraphs and sentences that have been found the notable media sites and publications.

Even most of newspaper articles about the profile of a person is usually tagged as sponsored content and you know that as long as an article drives sales or generates clicks or they have been paid then they will have to publish it. And how many international media houses are going to write about the profiles of Ugandan people in depth from childhood to education to their careers. They will just write a paragraph about the career and working experience.

And for the awards, what makes the award notable?

Should we be only considering the Grammy Awards or the BET Awards as the notable awards and not the top Ugandan Awards that awards their Ugandan musicians.

Or we should only be considering the Komla Dumor Award as the only notable award for journalists and not the awards that are given by the Uganda Journalists Association (UJA) because they are not recognized anywhere apart from Uganda.

I understand that we are doing the deletions to improve the quality of content on Wikipedia and that not everybody deserves to have a Wikipedia article since it is not an advertising platform.

And also you are not tagging these articles in bad faith but it is for the greater good. But how are we going to increase the African content on Wikipedia yet the articles written with the fewer references that are harder to get are also being deleted. If the article did follow guidelines such as WP:NPOV or the Wikipedia:Notability (people) or the tone was harsh.

I suggest that this article should be retained.

And also instead of deleting the published articles, they should be moved back to the draft space where someone can wait for 6 months before even getting a reference that writes about that person in depth. But at-least it gives the editors another chance to look deeper for the reference to find the new references that have written.

These kinds of deletions demotivate new editors, they will end up losing interest in contributing to the different projects of the Wikimedia Foundation especially if they tried to follow the guidelines for writing the articles about different topics. B722N (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Biographies of living people are one of the most challenging types of article. A lot get deleted because we have a very high threshold for notability where they're concerned. I’ve no doubt there are many articles to be written on Uganda-related topics, using ordinary newspapers and other sources, where they won’t be challenged - that’s why newer users are often advised to avoid BLPs to start with. I’ve no objection to this article being draftified if there are in fact better sources that will clearly demonstrate notability. But draftification is pointless unless those sources probably exist. Mccapra (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your time @Mccapra and enlightening me. All of your points have been noted. B722N (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article is a WP:REFBOMB but not a single one provides WP:SIGCOV of the subject. All available sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (corporate bio pages, self-authored material) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS with a name-check or perhaps a photo caption. He seems like a terrific civic-minded local leader but there is no evidence the subject passes the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. (As for the latter, an editor up-thread appears to say that Owor is listed in the Ugandan biographical dictionary, but there is no cite to that in the article and I cannot find that such a reference exists at all, much less that Owor is in it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Laboratory Response Network

edit
Laboratory Response Network (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 WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Redirect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of which it is a part. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Keep, Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Pet Friendly's

edit
Pet Friendly'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)

Non-notable company, no secondary sources. This article has no sources that suggest notability, but only references to the subject's own website/blog. If we compare the name of the account that created the article, Cathalmoylan, with the name of one of the founders of the business, Cathal Moylan (mentioned in the article), it becomes obvious that there is a WP:COI. Even so, the article is not written in a promotional way, so it can't be speedied per G11. However, it's clearly not a notable business. Bishonen | tålk 22:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete, Can't find any secondary sources, I can only find the website. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I am unable to find any non-primary coverage of this small business at all, making it a failure of WP:NCORP. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: It seems like a small business and there aren't any independent sources to show it's widely known or important. Also, the references all seem to be from the business itself, which raises concerns about potential bias. Waqar💬 18:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTPROMO --Lenticel (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hacktivity

edit
Hacktivity (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 found no significant coverage for this conference. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Bus (group)

edit
Bus (group) (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 band. Article was moved from draft space and I originally returned it. After examining the article I noticed that it claim the band started 6 December 2023. However, the the only reference was published 2 February 2021. This was at least 17 months before auditions started. In addition the reference seemed to be about three young women and not twelve young men. The article provides no references for a band that has only released two singles and was created by a non-notable reality show, 789 SURVIVAL. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Granita (restaurant)

edit
Granita (restaurant) (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:MILL defunct restaurant whose claim for inclusion is a WP:1E situation: the restaurant was known only for being the site of the Blair–Brown deal, an event in British political history which has nothing to do with the restaurant as such. Nothing else about the restaurant is in any way remarkable or notable. Sandstein 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Blimus

edit
Blimus (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 is quite old, band seems to be long-since defunct. No real evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. No hits, no awards, no label, etc. None of the links are archived on archive.org, two are just listings on the programme for a festival. The BBC interview is the most promising but an interview alone wouldn't support an article, and looking at the URL it seems like it was actually a promotional listing for that same festival, rather than a journalistic interview. Googling around it seems to mostly be Wikipedia mirrors at this point. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete I found some media coverage from 2010 and apparently they were active as late as 2011, but mostly it's just Wikipedia mirrors. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks OK to delete. That 2010 interview on Surrey Live consists mostly of deliberately nonsensical quotes by band member Graham Hill. Attention-getting, yes. Notable in the Wikipedia sense, no. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: No sources found for this band, only two hits on the word in Gnews, one of which is in German, both are unrelated. Article now is thread-bare with minimal sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign

edit
Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign (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 is not a notable topic. This is an extended news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply. It's also too likely to devolve into a WP:POVFORK. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely a problem. I'm voting to keep, partly because the information covered here is notable and not covered anywhere else and can't really be covered in the required detail anywhere else. Could a page be made for the first debate itself? MarkiPoli (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect: per CFA comment. There is coverage but can be included in other articles.FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside per the above. --MuZemike 13:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fait accompli, but I'd like to register my vote as keep anyway before it's deleted. It is very notable that 119 days before a US presidential election, many of the party are outright calling for an incumbent president to relinquish the nomination. To be honest, you could probably create a whole article for the first debate (where there normally isn't articles for individual debates) due to the notability of it and the polticial firestorm it has caused, much more than I would say any other televised presidential debate in US history. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    If Biden becomes the nominee, and wins re-election, would you still argue that calls for him to step aside were “notable” enough for an entire separate article? Or what if Biden does step down; wouldn’t it be weird to have an article about “calls for Biden to step down”, rather than a more broad article about him suspending his campaign altogether? A “notable” political firestorm in July, may not be notable at all in November. Prcc27 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    Even if he doesn't get replaced and goes on to the general, I'd argue it still is notable that so close to the election, after all primaries are done, that so many of the candidate's same party are calling for him to step down, has this ever happened before? If he does step down, this article is simply renamed to "Suspension of Joe Biden's 2024 presidential campaign". MarkiPoli (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with MarkiPoli Fodient (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    You don't remember the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape coming out in October 2016? Thank you for the demonstration of recency bias that underpins WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
BLAR - Likewise agree with @Ivanvector. W9793 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
KeepThe sheer number of reliable sources talking about it indicate that it is notable. It is more than just a single news cycle considering it has been a week and a half from the debate and it is still so prominently talked about. If it were just an extended news cycle, the publications about it would be diminishing, not growing. JMM12345 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep The main article, "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign", already says "It has been suggested that this article should be split into multiple articles." So, a split into sub-articles is suggested to be necessary. And, this is definitely a sub-article of the article "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign". GoldWitness (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    It has been suggested, but the current WP:CONSENSUS at that article’s talk page seems to be against splitting the article up. Prcc27 (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which is substantially the same. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:LASTING Influential members of the president's party calling for him to step down after he has secured delegates is unprecedented, and will be discussed for decades, even if he doesn't step down. Tons of reliable sources. The article is too large to be part of another article.Fodient (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    Are people still talking about Calls for Donald Trump to suspend his 2016 United States presidential campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out to the extent that it needs its own article? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    Donald Trump wasn't the incumbent president with nearly 99% of the delegates to acquire his party's nomination.Fodient (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    What does that have to do with the fact that calls for Donald Trump to drop out in 2016 are contained at Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape#Calls to drop campaign and the Trump 2016 article not a separate article? Much like calls for Biden to drop out should remain on the 2024 debate and Biden 2024 pages? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe someone should make the article. Just because an article doesn't exist for something that's kinda similar is not an argument that another article should not exist.Fodient (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think the 2016 articles show well how to handle a situation like this once we're past the burst of WP:RECENTISM that we are stuck right in the middle of in 2024. If Biden stays in, this will fade. If he doesn't, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    If Biden stays in or steps down this will remain notable and discussed for decades.Fodient (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    So you think, due to recency bias, but calls for Trump to drop out in 2016 have failed the WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    No recency bias here. A sitting president being called upon by prominent members of his own party as well as notable previous supporters, plus a senator, who is former VP nominee, is looking for other senators to join him in asking for the president to step down. This is something that will be discussed in history classes. Fodient (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough reporting and opinion writing about it is there. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

KCBT-LD

edit
AfDs for this article:
KCBT-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)

This television station does not contain the necessaryWP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. This subject did survive a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today, and a AfD earlier this year closed as non consensus due to low participation. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

KVHF-LD

edit
AfDs for this article:
KVHF-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 lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Facility records and FCC licenses don't cut it, and a search didn't come up with much more. Let'srun (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Dracthyr

edit
Dracthyr (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 the issue isn't one of conversation regarding the subject in the referenced media outlets, the problem is more one that the article's subject matter and reception is strictly within the scope of World of Warcraft: there is no indication of notability outside of that, discussion or examination. They are essentially less a fictional character race and more a gameplay mechanic that strictly matters within the context of the game itself. This is similar to how the previously AfD'd Gnasher Shotgun was strictly a gameplay element of Gears of War.

Attempts to try and find more sourcing proved fruitless, especially with Google Scholar. Additionally SUSTAINED is also a concern, as beyond the initial announcement the subsequent articles were in a short time span to each other. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Not really sure how someone can look at the article and come out with "there are no reliable sources" "this lacks notability" besides a gross failure of WP:BEFORE. The Game Informer article, Polygon article, PC Gamer article, PCGamesN article and a 2nd Polygon article are all SIGCOV about the Dracthyr that easily exceed the threshold for GNG. As for the idea of "notability outside the scope of WoW", I'm not sure what policy this is trying to argue it violates; I suppose WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The article does discuss the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, and articles on fictional races are not uncommon. So how exactly is this different? It flummoxes me what the deletion rationale is here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I am similarly flummoxed. Yes, a World of Warcraft race is discussed as part of World of Warcraft; being discussed in context is not a negative. Independent discussion on Google Scholar is unlikely, and not necessary to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment @User:Zxcvbnm Zx there are many times I've tried to assume good faith with you, but at no point did I say "there are no reliable sources" or even imply that. You have been on a *really* bad tear with bad faith lately. As it stands the point was that the article's reception is discussing a *fictional* race strictly in the context of a gameplay element. Key word: fictional. The sources you thumped there are all within the same short time span, and all examine the subjet in the scope of a *gameplay* element. There is no discussion regarding design or examination of them as a race. This is no different than trying to do an article on a Pokemon and strictly focusing on how good or bad it was in terms of gameplay for its particular generation. Any other fictional race article still illustrates some reaction or examination beyond just the gameplay element. Additionally User:Toughpigs at no point did I ascertain Google Scholar was the only outlet, just one observation that even there there was nothing as scholarly works tend to be a go-to on this subject. The problem is not that it's discussed in the context of WoW, but that it is *only* discussed in that context and strictly a gameplay context. If you're going to oppose that's fine but don't mischaracterize my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    To be clear, the argument they are only spoken of in gameplay terms is completely false; the last paragraph in the article argues the journalist's opinion that the Dracthyr were shoehorned into WoW's lore and story. I personally believe that specific discussion about their role in the story is not a necessary step to prove notability, but, even if it were, this would still pass by your very own criteria.
    I do admit that was not exactly what I meant, but it was not meant in "bad faith". I will edit it to clarify with better wording. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    That by itself is at least something, but it still feels hard to justify a stand alone article on the subject (and strengthens Pokelego's point about it being a more viable merge into a Dragonflight article). SIGCOV is just one aspect of an article, but the actual content of a discussion needs to be considered. I feel sometimes you rush to make sure you have sources just to satisfy perceived policy, but itself isn't the only deciding factor on an article. Case in point, the recent discussion about Ornstein and Smough. It's not just about meeting that WP:THREE threshold. The reader neeeds to understand the significance of this subject with no prior knowledge to WoW or gaming too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. Basically every source in the Reception section is discussing how the Dracthyr affected gameplay of the game, but there's no indication of notability aside from that. The Dracthyr are essentially just a gameplay mechanic. Outside of a brief snippet of PC Gamer in the first paragraph and the Polygon source in the last paragraph, none of the sources are showing any impact of the Dracthyr outside of the context of World of Warcraft, and simply show the impact of the expansion they were introduced in on gameplay of the game. It feels more logical to me this is covered at the Dragonflight article, since basically everything about the Dracthyr are in the context of Dragonflight. Someone curious about the Dracthyr's impact on the game are better off going to what actually changed the game, instead of a gameplay mechanic that is part of the expansion. I'm not opposed to this being split out if more sources proving notability separate from the expansion are found, but right now there's really not that much. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
As I stated above, there is literally commentary on how they impact the game's plot. The "just a gameplay mechanic" argument does not hold any water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
As I stated in my vote, there is very little sourcing showing considerable impact. Just because there are two sources is not enough to separate the concept from the base expansion, and can easily be included in the Dragonflight article, where the bulk of this information is most relevant. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Articles being written on the race is in itself proof of outside impact, just as reviews of games are. Playing as the race has impacted someone enough to critique it. Suggesting that an article's subject must be discussed in a scholarly context to be viable as a standalone page is plain ridiculous and there is no policy like this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's inherently true. For example, Pokémon species routinely get articles about them, but we understand that as routine coverage, much like how we may consider it routine coverage to discuss the impact of a new race or class in an MMO. What outside impact is demonstrated in the sources? Every source is written in a comparatively short period of time, and they're all written in the context of how the Dracthyr impacts the expansion. Are there any articles that go outside the initial period the articles listed are written in? For an MMO, the notion that this race is discussed only in a seven-month period feels like it speaks little of its independent notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge per Pokelego999. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge. The sources seem to treat Dracthyr as a gameplay mechanic first and foremost, which is not compelling to me that this is a significant subject beyond significant as part of Dragonflight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Franz Ketterer

edit
Franz Ketterer (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 about an obscure subject that does not seem to be notable outside of some (likely incorrect) mentions that he invented the cuckoo clock. I cannot find sufficient sourcing to improve the article. Mbdfar (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: Most sources online are clock stores and blogs which are not reliable. There are quite a few hits on Google books that claim he did indeed invent the cuckoo clock, some written in in the 1800s, so I do not entirely believe it is a myth that has just propagated around the internet. The article is obviously WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; it would have to be rewritten and appropriately sourced. I believe the subject probably is notable if he did invent the cuckoo clock, I just don't think there's enough coverage to write an article claiming he did without WP:OR. With the coverage that I have found, the article would amount to nothing more than a short stub stating something like "Franz Ketterer was a German clockmaker who may have invented the cuckoo clock." If someone does look through Google books or elsewhere and finds even a bit more in-depth coverage, I will change my vote to keep. C F A 💬 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    Keep Thanks to Cielquiparle for improving the article.
  • Keep and keep improving. Article was in dismal shape so have performed WP:TNT and rewritten with citations. Meets WP:GNG although the article is more about the historiography rather than a biography per se (not uncommon, the further back in history you go). While not every history mystery is worthy of a Wikipedia article, this one is because the village of Schönwald and other entities continue to promote the Franz Ketterer story. Good article to have flagged for cleanup, now we can keep improving. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Cansolabao, Samar

edit
Cansolabao, Samar (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)

Does not have any notability and has no sources. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized barangays. Also, coverage found in books. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Cocobb8 barangays are not cities/towns of the Philippines. They are just administrative divisions. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). Only those that jave backing reliable, independent, secondary sources that are not mere statistic listings or listings of schools/establishments/tourist sites, like Forbes Park, Makati, are qualified to have standalone articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    @JWilz12345, I know that it is an administrative division, which is why I am saying that it meets WP:GEOLAND per [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I am using the guideline as a justification for my !vote, and the discussion you linked to was not officially closed, nor was it an official RfC in any way, so at this point WP:GEOLAND is the guideline to follow for this article. Yes, it lacks coverage, but it is presumed notable per GEOLAND. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Cocobb8 so, in your opinion, is Barangay 51, Caloocan (list of Caloocan's barangays) notable too? It is a legal administrative division, with a chief local executive (a "barangay captain or chairman") and a set of elected councilors ("barangay kagawad"). The country has more than 40,000 barangays or administrative wards of the country's 1,634 incorporated places. Hard to maintain all 40K+ articles as per some concerns raised by Filipino Wikipedians in debates concerning articles of barangays of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    @JWilz12345 I did not realize it was 40,000 barangays. Thanks for pointing it out. But, I would still keep this article per the coverage I found in books. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    Clarification: Barangays are not just "administrative" divisions like regions, but are full fledged political units like towns, cities and provinces. WP:GEOLAND has a funky definition of a "settlement". Barangay 666 in Manila is not a WP:GEOLAND settlement, as it along with 800 barangays of Manila, and perhaps 90% of the barangays in Mega Manila, are one contiguous urban sprawl. Standalone barangays in the hinterlands are WP:GEOLAND settlements if the built up area is not contiguous with the primary settlement in the town center. The question is if WP:GEOLAND is good enough if we can't write an article because there's no WP:SIGCOV from an WP:RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Howard the Duck maybe because the Philippine LGU system when it comes to municipal level is not intended as it was originally used to be. The article for the Philippine towns speaks of a former type of "town" called "municipal districts" that were mostly found in far-flung or remote areas. They were unincorporated (similar to U.S. census designated places) and were managed by tribal chieftains. It was after World War II that these unincorporated regions/districts within the provinces began to be converted to regular towns or municipalities, even those that do not comprise a single settlement but multiple barangay settlements that may not be contiguous to each other. The last of the conversions to regular municipalities were in the 1980s.
    I would like to see a country whose smallest administrative divisions/units are covered by enwiki. I think that would be India (e.g. Delhi Cantonment and Haqiqat Nagar ➡️ List of neighbourhoods of Delhi). @Cocobb8:, can you give specific examples of countries whose 90-100% of smallest administrative divisions (divisions of cities/towns) are covered by enwiki? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    @JWilz12345, it's not about whether that is the case for other small administrative divisions. That is a larger-scale discussion, and that is not the purpose of this AfD. As I said before, I would still keep this as per the sources I found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Howard the Duck Just a question where does GEOLAND talk about urban sprawl and subdvisions/subadminsitrative units of a greater one? Ping me in the reply too please. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    There was a previous barangay AFD like this one, and Barangay 666 in Manila is not a "settlement" for GEOLAND purposes but villages that are built up separately are. I don't have a computer with me and I won't be bothered to look it up on mobile. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Traumnovelle: In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, User:Eostrix discusses this. Granted it was apparently his personal interpretation.
    As for this barangay, this is quite some distance away from the main Hinabangan town center, about 36 kilometers away. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    ...that AfD completely mis-applies WP:GEOLAND... SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays as per WP:ATD --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Cansolabao is also a village. The article should be reworked and sources added, but a village with 1,200 people would be notable in a country where the administrative boundaries aren't in wiki-dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
    @SportingFlyer the current de facto consensus among Filipino Wikipedians is that the administrative wards or barangays should be treated per case-to-case basis. Those like Forbes Park, Makati can stand alone, but majority (90% perhaps) do not. Unless a higher consensus through WP:GEOLAND forums overrides the de facto consensus of the Filipino Wikipedians. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    WP:GEOLAND is policy which would over-ride local consensus, which would not preclude this topic anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
    WP:GEOLAND is a subject-specific notability guideline, and overrides local consensus. WP:GNG is the general notability guideline overrides any WP:SNG. WP:GNG overrides WP:GEOLAND. The argument here is does this place have WP:SIGCOV anywhere? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    WP:GNG does not actually override WP:GEOLAND - WP:GEOLAND is one of the rare exceptions and simply requires verification that this is a populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Prince Karl of Hesse

edit
Prince Karl of Hesse (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. Sources include passing mentions in a couple of books about other people and a self-published fansite. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. References add up to enough to pass GNG. The coverage of his wedding in 1966 by Pathé News, a British newsreel company, was the equivalent of coverage by network television news today. The book references are way more than passing mentions, and the subject doesn't have to be the primary topic of a book for it to be a valid reference. Being a German aristocrat is not by itself enough to establish notability, but an aristocrat who attracts consistent media attention can be notable. Interestingly, the German Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him, but the French and Dutch ones do. Someone who reads German might be able to find additional references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just sources are just about sufficient for general notability. Cortador (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Enough sources to pass notability. Azarctic (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. The wedding might be notable as a news event, but all the other citations are books about other people (Queen Sophia or the Nazi Hesses) or directories. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete The only item that get somehow significant coverage was his marriage. Therefore this is a case for WP:ONEEVENT and this only got attention because of the attending guests, not the couple itself. So, no notability. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Josephine Balsamo

edit
Josephine Balsamo (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 appear to meet WP:N. Possible merge/redirect to Arsene Lupin or Maurice Leblanc, but not sure which. All information is unsourced too, so I am not sure it would be a valuable merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment - It looks like there is a viewable preview of that book here. The coverage of the character in it is extremely minimal - basically mentioning her when describing the plot of the original story that The Castle of Cagliostro was loosely adapted from. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks for confirming that. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Arsène Lupin#Overview, where she is briefly mentioned. The current article is completely unsourced, and searching is not bringing up anything but brief mentions in plot summaries, such as in the book discussed above. Since there is no "character list" for the Lupin series, and the original story she appeared in does not seem to have its own article, redirecting to the main page where she is briefly mentioned appears to be the best viable target. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia

edit
List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia (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:NLIST with no evidence that reliable, secondary, independent sources discuss Australian female Anglican bishops as a group versus discussing them individually. (The sources listed under "Further Reading" describe the experiences or cover women clergy more generally or all women Anglican clergy in Australia, not just bishops. The one exception, a book by Muriel Porter is not an independent source, as Porter is an elected member of the Anglican Church's governing synod and described in her Wikipedia article as an "advocate" who is "active in campaigning" for women's ordination in the church.) Meanwhile, the page fails WP:NOPAGE as a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of female Anglican bishops. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I disagree with most of the points you make as reasons for deletion. For example I don't think there needs to be one source dedicated to just female Anglican bishops in Australia, but a source can cover bishops in the Anglican communion generally as well as other clergy. The only point I can see as valid is that the list could be seen as a content fork of List of female Anglican bishops. I admit I only saw that other list after I created this one. In the case of it needing to be merged I think it would have been better to message me or put something on the Talk page about merging rather than marking it for deletion. I have marked this comment as Keep for now only to see if other editors want to comment. However if there is enough support to merge List of women bishops with List of female Anglican bishops... I am happy to do that and I will then continue to update the List of female bishops with the Australian ones because that is one of my areas of focus on wikipedia.LPascal (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Extra comment: In case I am asked to find more sources on women bishops, I'm sure I could find one here on this list but I don't have time to do that just now https://search.worldcat.org/lists/1b9e2384-b013-48e0-b45b-911ee8d3ca3f And I think it would be impractical to expect to find a source who was a journalist or historian writing about the Anglican church who was not in some way connected to the church. If anyone writes about ordained women in the Anglican church it is usually because they are for or against and rarely are they "independent". LPascal (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Extra comment: I have just found a load of newspaper articles dating back to at least early 2000s discussing women bishops as a group in the Anglican Church of Australia, so I could add those into the sources or Further reading if anyone thinks they will be better as reliable, secondary, independent sources that support a freestanding list of women bishops in Australia. Here's just a few but I will wait for consensus before I add them to a list.https://www.news.com.au/national/anglicans-elect-first-woman-bishop/news-story/670c8cfb59e29dc6a251374541369c8b https://tma.melbourneanglican.org.au/2024/04/one-in-six-diocesan-assistant-bishops-a-woman-across-australia/ https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria-rebels-on-women-bishops-20031012-gdwiyd.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/women-bishops-a-step-closer-20030704-gdvzja.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-09-30/division-remains-after-way-cleared-for-female/685088 LPascal (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I would support a merge as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Muuse Ismaciil Qalinle

edit
Muuse Ismaciil Qalinle (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)

Contested PROD. The sources do not demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. (The first source is some kind of WP:USERGENERATED list of MP3 files, the second source has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the subject, and the third fails verification entirely, referencing an entirely different individual with the patronym "Qalinle.") Edited to add: an editor has added a reference to Somali Culture and Folklore, pages 63-64. I do not believe this is a valid reference; the book itself is 64 pages and according to Google Books pages 63 and 64 appear to be index pages; Qalinle does not appear as a search term. Additional qualifying sources were not found in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yevhen Kholoniuk

edit
AfDs for this article:
Yevhen Kholoniuk (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 skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Messhof

edit
Messhof (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 notability for a biography. See talk page for prior discussion, I think anything relevant here is feasible to merge into the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Messhof is a single game dev, so the article passes the subject-specific notability criteria at WP:NARTIST. He "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". He has several independently notable games, and Ghost Bike is also likely to be notable upon release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    A "single game dev" exception seems arbitrary. What specifically, a collective body of work? I can see Nidhogg as a two part series but Ghostbike would appear independent and WP:TOOSOON. I would create a category with the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, source 3 is two photos and captions, nothing extensive. Source 7 is mainly an interview with this person; rest used in the article are only mentions of this person... Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't find anything else about this person that isn't already in the article, and the sources aren't all about this person, or are trivial coverage. Just not enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject's works are clearly the focus of multiple, reliable, independent sources, passing the general notability guideline as a creator. Our articles on his works (Nidhogg (video game), Flywrench, Nidhogg 2) each have sources covering his role in creating them. Additionally, reliable sources have also covered his other works not independently notable, such as Punishment 2[1] and Ghost Bike[2][3]. There is enough reliable source coverage of these other games that they wouldn't fit in an existing article and so the developer's own article is a natural place to cover them. czar 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wang Qingyun

edit
AfDs for this article:
Wang Qingyun (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 skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Veronika Kropotina

edit
AfDs for this article:
Veronika Kropotina (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 skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Marek Solčanský

edit
Marek Solčanský (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)

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage about this luger to meet WP:GNG. All I found on news websites were passing mentions of his participation at the tournament. He was not even on top three luge winners. This article has been deleted from Slovak Wikipedia on 18 November 2018, possibly due to BLP concerns. The only interlanguage wiki available is Norsk Bokmål (Norwegian) Wikipedia but it listed exactly the same sources as the English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep the article meets the notability criteria for athletes, having competed in the Winter Olympics and achieved notable rankings in World Championships and World Cups.Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Nuckle Brothers

edit
Nuckle Brothers (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. There's the 50 words in the OC Weekly article that's linked already, and there are mentions in student newspapers like the Daily Titan ([4], [5], [6]), but they can't establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Robin Kinross

edit
Robin Kinross (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)

Does this even pass WP:GNG? The current references are certainly nowhere near up to scratch. One hit on Google News. Uhooep (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Cambodia's Kitchen

edit
Cambodia's Kitchen (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 orphan article. Getting 2 reviews in the Melbourne press really isn't a big claim for notability as per WP:AUD. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Rodell, Besha (2022-08-30). "Cambodia's Kitchen brings a taste of Cambodia to the CBD". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend magazine and in The Age here. The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet."

    2. "Australia Travel: Best places to eat in Melbourne". The New Zealand Herald. 2022-11-20. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls."

    3. Monssen, Kara (2022-11-16). "Cambodia's Kitchen review 2022: Chinatown newcomer behind city's great-value lunch spot". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder."

    4. Sweet, Frank (2023-06-30). "Melbourne's best hot pots". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast."

    5. Curran, Libby (2022-08-18). "Cambodia's Kitchen Is the New CBD Restaurant Paying Homage to Classic Cambodian Fare". Concrete Playground. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf."

      • HereInternet Archive is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
        1. Its editor is Samantha Teague.
        2. "Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
        3. "All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
        4. "Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
        5. "Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
        6. "All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
        7. "We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
        8. "Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
        Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press (1), Johns Hopkins University Press (1), Routledge (1 and 2), Taylor & Francis (1), and Text Publishing (1).
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cambodia's Kitchen to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Abstract differential geometry

edit
Abstract differential geometry (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:OR: All this stub is based on 4 primary sources that have the same first author

WP:ORPHAN: All incoming links from the main space are in "See also" sections or in a stand-alone list. Apparrently, the only reason of these links is de-orphanization. D.Lazard (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I would lightly support deletion. On Google Scholar, the "Geometry of vector sheaves" book has been cited 137 times, although the majority appear to be self-citations or citations of the form "for work on this related topic, see the book Geometry of vector sheaves". As far as I can tell (but without confidence), the topic is not of major research interest. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
In other words, you did not find any reliable WP:secondary source that discusses the subject. D.Lazard (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to say anything definitive yet, but a first pass through the citations to both books has an anomalously high level of dubious sources: MDPI journals, unreviewed preprints, etc. In any case, this stub has been functionally abandoned since 2009, and the creator has not edited since 2010, so working on it doesn't seem to be anyone's top priority. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete This looks like a real topic, with publications over decades. But as far as I can tell, all the work I've seen comprises primary sources, or secondary sources written by the primary authors. As far as I can tell there are no in-depth independent reliable sources for the topic, so an article would need original research to construct it. Hence delete, but happy to reconsider if substantial independent sources are found. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Mild support of deletion. From what I've seen, this subject is decades away from being ready for a Wikipedia article. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete or light merge: In the current state, it doesn’t pass the notability. Also, 1998 is too recent in mathematics and I couldn’t find any evidence that this is a very active research topic (if active, 1998 is still ok). It’s a bit unfortunate since the idea seems interesting. In fact, the abstract [10] mentions the sheaf-theoretic aspect and that’s not new and so maybe it is possible to mention the book in some way in some other articles; basically, there are many approaches to differential geometry and there might be a way to mention the book, although we need to assess the significance of the work. —- Taku (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Outline of Cebu

edit
Outline of Cebu (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 blank and redirect, but it seems an unlikely search term. I simply fail to see what pupose this article serves; there is already an article on Cebu. TheLongTone (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Cebu. Procyon117 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect not a useful outline, everything should be in the main article. Reywas92Talk 22:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge with Cebu (WP:OUTLINES may be embedded) and leave things for editors to sort out. Thincat (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge As page creator, per Thincat.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Don't see any need for a redirect. Gjs238 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cebu. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Gdeszyn

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

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a Battle of Gdeszyn . Fajowy (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I support this article is based on one sentence from Volodymyr Viatrovich's book which talks about this battle and nothing more and he is considered even for pseudo-historic AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Firefly (film series) characters

edit
List of Firefly (film series) characters (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 WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN and CAT:UNREF for years. Possible redirect to TV series, but unsure merge is a good WP:ATD as this is all unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Video logging

edit
Video logging (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)

Bereft of encylopedic content, while the term is cleary genuine it's also pretty self explanatory (that video logging is the logging of video, thank you wikipedia). Reads somewhere between a how to guide and veichle for spam. Article isn't serving any purpose not met by Digital asset management, Content management etc. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Kind of want to Keep just because Vlogging exists, can be called video logging as well, and this seems needed for distinguishment against that. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: My first thought was to redirect to "vlog", but that's a different concept. This is categorizing videos, which seems self-explanatory and not really needing an article. This is at best a DICDEF that's too long. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    • @Oaktree b: Still think if this is deleted, “Video logging" redirects to “Vlog" Hyperbolick (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Audiovisual archive This seems like the proper place for an article to redirect to; though we certainly aren't logging physical tapes in plastic markers with magic marker regularly by any means, this fits right into the first half of creating an AV archive for sure, though most of it is probably automated these days. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Swadhin Axom

edit
Swadhin Axom (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. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Delete/Repurpose Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.
    You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.
    Sources and GNG
    Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
    • Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism
    • Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once
    • Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once
    • Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once
    • Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.
    • Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech
    • Source 7 - Does not mention it
    • Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement
    • Source 11 - Does not mention it
    • Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement
    • Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement
    • Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it
    • etc. etc.
    Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.
    However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:
    WP:V - Verifiability
    Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.
    For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.
    I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
    Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.
    A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
    I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.
    Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).
    Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).
    Both of the 3 papers are important sources
    Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well
    Ref:
    Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.
    Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.
    Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.
    Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.
    Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.
    Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources
    You mentioned the following:
    " If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."
    I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.
    There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
    I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :
    However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.
    Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.
    The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.
    This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.
    Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.
    ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Moruf Oseni

edit
Moruf Oseni (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)

Procedural nom following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 19 where consensus was that the speedy wasn't the right outcome, but did not necessarily find support for retention and the outcome was for an AfD to establish consensus. Note I have dropped the protection to ECP to allow established editors to improve the article if they feel so inclined as it didn't feel right to have a fully protected article at AfD. However if p-blocks or other solutions are needed, feel free to implement them. I have not protected the AfD out of hope that all editors will work productively. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the main issue with the page? Are other editors citing any apart from the G11 on the Achievements and Awards section mentioned in the deletion review? @Star Mississippi Michael Ugbodu (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the merit @Michael Ugbodu, I just nominated it as the outcome of the DRV. Star Mississippi 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Tentative cautious keep. It appears this article has a history of ping-ponging between draft space and mainspace, with promotional tone, COI/UPE(?) editing issues, and initially unclear claims of significance/notability. As such it deserves scrutiny. (As an aside, it sounded from DRV there might be information about this on the article's talk page, but this has not been undeleted). That said, earlier this month Michael Ugbodu (who I understand may be an involved editor?) added additional sources which point to achievements and awards that present a credible assertion of significance. In such cases, there are sometimes concerns if the sourcing (and awards) themselves are sufficiently independent, i.e. editorially independent vs regurgitating primary sources only. I'm not familiar with Nigerian sourcing, so don't have a good opinion on this. However, while the process followed with this article has been irregular and far from good practice, absent credible assertions to the contrary, it does seem there is adequate 3rd party coverage, sourcing, and notability to warrant an article. Martinp (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for flagging the lack of talk page @Martinp. Oversight on my part. It's now undeleted Star Mississippi 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    Now that I've reviewed the talk page, and read the DRV in more detail, I'm changing to delete, send back to draft and enforce requiring using WP:AFC to recreate by any COI editors. I applaud @Michael Ugbodu for their clear statement of COI on the talk page, and for hunting up promising sources. However, paid editing COI should also be listed on the editor's user talk page, and paid-COI article drafts are indeed supposed to go through WP:AFC, not be promoted into mainspace by a COI editor. This is not just bureaucracy, it is exactly there where independence of sources, article bias, etc can be reviewed best, insulating from the fact that a paid-COI editor has much more energy to argue than uncompensated volunteers if there is any debate. We've now had (at least) multiple days at DRV and now 2.5 days here where no-one independent has truly investigated notability and independence of the secondary sources used. Given the COI, this is a must, and while it may be frustrating to a paid editor and their client to have to wait, it would equally be unfair to keep this article in mainspace absent someone independent, experienced with local (Nigerian) sourcing, to verify, jumping the queue vs other paid articles that are going through the (admittedly clogged) AFC pipeline. I'm happy to change my vote if someone independent does investigate those sources during the rest of this AFD. Martinp (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
We need to come to a consensus on the main issues with the page. The sources for the awards section are all newspaper sources and not primary sources, so can be considered credible. However, I think the second paragraph on the achievements section can be better written or scrapped as it sounds promotional.
Let's hear what others think as well. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It's trickier, Michael. We have a lot of trouble with CV-like COI articles which do use secondary (newspaper) sources, but they are not sufficiently independent of the article subject. I'm (probably) not notable in wikispeak, but would not become so just because I persuaded a newspaper (or two) to run an article where they just parroted what I told them. That's why we need someone who doesn't have a COI to look into that (I can't, since I know nothing about Nigerian newspaper writing habits!) Martinp (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Martin Tišťan

edit
Martin Tišťan (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)

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Athletics because I could not find enough in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. The only decent source I found is Netky where he was disqualified, but it looks nowhere near significant. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship

edit
AfDs for this article:
2019 CAFA U-16 Championship (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, no significant coverage Mdann52 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1. the initial delete nomination (lack independent sourcing):
Link 1 by Khovar.tj National Information Agency of Tajikistan/ not related to CAFA
Link 2 Tasnim News Agency an Iranian new agency Independent from CAFA
Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA
Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan
and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing
2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment International level competition and there are sources, however they are very young. So I am not sure at what level wikipedia should be keeping these. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Keep
    let us remember that The Central Asian Football Association (CAFA) was only formed in 2015, and with the tournament being the 8th tournament organised, CAFA has shown significant progress in promoting and developing football in the region. Over the years, CAFA has developed its media coverage and reporting capabilities, making the tournaments more accessible and notable. While the first editions may have had limited coverage due to CAFA's emerging stage and limited experience, the organization's growth and increased attention highlight the importance of these early stages articles being there.
    Furthermore, for Central Asia, where international sports events are relatively scarce, CAFA's tournaments hold notable significance. The early editions of the tournament are crucial for understanding the development of football in the region and providing a better statistical context. As CAFA continues to grow and attract more attention, the historical records of all editions, including the first ones, will be valuable for researchers, fans, and anyone interested in the football in Central Asia.
    Therefore, despite its relatively young age, CAFA's tournaments are notable and deserving of coverage on Wikipedia, as they contribute to the broader narrative of international sports in Central Asia. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Mehran Tebyani

edit
Mehran Tebyani (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)

Moved from draft by conflicted editor, no evidence of passing WP:GNG primary sources and interviews don't help with notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Redraftify until notability issues fixed. Procyon117 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Muzzammil Aslam

edit
Muzzammil Aslam (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 creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    • SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

List of country subdivision flags in Africa

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of country subdivision flags in Africa (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)

Just closed to draftify and immediately recreated by the same editor. Thanks to the merged content it is no longer a G4, but none of the material added addresses the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivision flags in Africa. If this closes as draftify or delete, suggest protection to avoid this situation again. Star Mississippi 23:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The title is "flags of country subdivisions of Africa", and what is shown are the flags of country subdivisions of Africa. By draftifying it, you are removing a whole list of flags that some people may find useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
This page is not a gallery anymore, I converted into informative tables. I hope this will help 2A02:A453:D05E:0:7859:2E95:3DE6:2A4A (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
It remains un sourced, which is the chief issue. Please log in when you edit. Star Mississippi 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
many sources have been added now. This should not be deleted. Eehuiio (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Please review sourcing guidelines. fotw.info is not an acceptable source, nor are many of the others. This is why it remains functionally unsourced. Star Mississippi 13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Even if it is unsourced, it still has information that fits the title. Deleting it would be useless and unnecessary. Eehuiio (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify over current draft with historymerge (the current list article at least looks better). Eehuiio, as Star Mississippi notes, neither fotw.info nor crwflags.com nor others are reliable sources. For the purpose of this list's entries, I believe official government sources would be reasonable to use despite not necessarily being independent. The alternative is that every entry that is not reliably sourced is removed/commented out per WP:V/WP:BURDEN, which would remove most content from this article; historymerge would be needed in this case anyway. If this is moved to draft, then please put it through the Articles for Creation process per the AFC template once you believe that the flags are properly sourced; please don't move this back to mainspace in a deficient state where it is likely to be speedily deleted, etc. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    This page also has other sources, so it isnt completely unsourced. Also, it still fulfills the title and is useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • post-relisting, confirm my draftification !vote, ref per comments of BD2412, etc. If it's fixed in draft and sent through AFC, then good. If it's left unfixed then so be it. If it's moved back to somewhere in mainspace in a deficient form (yes, protect away), then consider that a WP:G4 with broad latitude ref this AFD. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Nominator commentyes, the reopening was Involved, but I do not believe that is an issue as it's clearly not a discussion for a NAC. Cleaning up redirects now Star Mississippi 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think we're all tired of whack a sock. @Eehuiio if you run into issues editing here, just remember to log in first. This has nothing to do with your edits. I've protected against logged out edits. If any admin thinks this is Involved, feel free to revert me. Star Mississippi 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: and salt. Draftification makes sense when an editor editors familiar with our notability guidelines offers are available to work on the article. Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. If we draftify this again, it'll bounce right back to mainspace as soon as we turn our head away, and we'll be back here in a couple of weeks for the 3rd nomination. Salting in this case is only meant to force the author to go throuigh AfC. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete The rationale by Own makes sense to me and as a NP patroller I am frustrated when an editor ignores process. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify. Move-lock the draft and create-lock the page. The draft will either be worked on in draftspace or die on the vine. Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article. BD2412 T 21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify: I agree with BD2412 that the page should be SALTed until the draft is accepted at AfC. I also believe that a comment to that effect, with a link to this discussion, should be added to the draft for the benefit of AfC reviewers. I disagree with OwenX that Draftification makes sense when an editor familiar with our notability guidelines offers to work on the article. Anyone can edit a draft in the draftspace. As a result of this AfD, there will also now be likelly be a set of eyes on the draft. Someone could also agree to work with the author. Edited 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC). I also disagree with the contention that Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. Draftification is actually the best way to force that editor to try to learn those P&Gs so that they can get the article through AfC. I share Lightburst's frustrat[ion] when an editor ignores process, but I do not believe that it is a valid reason to delete an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    You make some good points, voorts, and I partially amended my !vote above accordingly. Yes, drafts are available for everyone to work on, and this AfD may very well bring more attention to the page. But while the AfC process was indeed intended to teach editors our P&G, the ability to move drafts into mainspace without going through AfC effectively negates that objective, allowing a SPA to circumvent the process. I'd gladly undelete the page to draft if a non-SPA requests it, or even history-merge with a new draft. But realistically, I doubt anyone but the original author has any interest in this page. I agree with BD2412's statement that Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article, but contend that this is exactly the case here, where sources do not establish notability, and the only one requesting a draft is an editor who doesn't seem concerned with our notability guidelines, and is simply waiting for an opportune moment to sneak the page back to mainspace. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    Just a quick side note. Flags of regions of Egypt is completely unsourced. The absence of sourcing in the nominated article revealed that, and if the latter article were fixed, it could transclude into this one as is. BD2412 T 21:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Fermor (Russian nobility)

edit
Fermor (Russian nobility) (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)

Nonnotable RUssuan family tagged since 2019. BAsically unreferenced. - Altenmann >talk 19:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Both named individuals of the Fermor family have high military ranks: William Fermor, General in Chief with the notable act of occupying Berlin plus Governor of Smolensk and Pavel Fermor, first principal of the Alexander Military Law Academy. William Fermor is referenced in the SSNE database of the University of St Andrews[1] as Commander in chief of Russian forces during the 7 year war. Axisstroke (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Notability of some persons has nothing to do with the notability of the family. WP:NOTINHERITED - Altenmann >talk 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
      The family bore arms of count of the Holy Roman Empire, your argument is pretty thin. Axisstroke (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
      Evidence? Anyway, In Wikipedia a notability of a subject, namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)" is judged from the presence of reliable sources describing the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") in reasonable detail. Please see WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS WP:CITE. - Altenmann >talk 20:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
      The SSNE entry 3876 referenced above lists it. Axisstroke (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
      SSNE 3876 says not a word about Russian family.- Altenmann >talk 16:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
      SSNE 3876 references count Wiliam Fermor, the most prominent member of this noble Russian family. Axisstroke (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
      For the fourth time, I don't see any references about "noble Russian family" to assert its notability for English Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
      " Governor General of Eastern Prussia and Commander in chief of Russian forces", how can that not be more russian?!?
      A family is the sum of its members of which there are several notable members.
      Repeating nonsensical stuff 4 or 5 times does not prove your point.
      The article subject is a Strong Keep as stated early on. Axisstroke (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
      Several persons with the same surname does not prove they constitute a family notable per Wikipedia requirements.
      You keep ignoring my request to provide reliable sources describing the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") in reasonable detail. I find it really strange to call wikipedia policies "nonsensical stuff". - Altenmann >talk 17:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
      The family has among its members several military leaders, one of the richest female entrepeneurs and has an high noble title. You seem not to have looked up the russian sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems your only argument. Also please stop removing relevant material. Axisstroke (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
      Sorry, I think I understood where the misunderstanding comes from. Please provide sources about the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") rather than about individual members. In English Wikipedia Notability is not inherited. - Altenmann >talk 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
      While the individual sources already give enough weight to its individual members of the family added relevant sources. Axisstroke (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item.php?id=3876

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Absent sources demonstrating notability for the family itself, this needs to be deleted. WP:NOTINHERITED goes both ways—a person does not become notable simply by belonging to a notable family, and likewise a family does not become notable simply by having notable members. TompaDompa (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    Not true and easily fixed from russian literature. Axisstroke (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement

edit
Disagreement (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 topic Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Disagreements (epistemology) has too many problems of its own to be the primary topic here. A broad-concept article at Agreement might be the best target; but I am not sure any redirect is better than the current quasi-DAB setup. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Redirect to any of the above choices. This article exists because nobody could what???????? 🤔
jp×g🗯️ 11:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Michael Buckwald

edit
AfDs for this article:
Michael Buckwald (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)

Eight months since the last AFD, and he's still a non-notable CEO of a notable company. Article is nearly identical to the previous version, apart from the 2013 Time magazine interview. The rest is still just coverage of him in the context of his company, passing mentions, and interviews. G4 contested by SPA anon editor, likely the logged-out article creator. Strong aroma of UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, California, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete fairly obvious WP:REFBOMB with largely worthless non-WP:GNG compliant sources like [11] and [12]. Looking at the new sources since the last AFD not addressed by the nom [13] there is no WP:SIGCOV of the subject. I suppose every so often the UPEs will try again when they have new paid placements or references with passing mentions that can be added to game G4 but it is what it is. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:44A3:EFF3:245F:594D (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Leap Motion (the company he was formerly CEO of) does have an article; his current company (Torch Sensors) does as well (much more dubiously). There is a non-trivial amount of coverage from c.2013. The article needs cleanup, but I am undecided between keep, redirect, and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh90210 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Checked all of the refs here (very bombed) and only one has more than a mention of him and that is an interview. Everything else name-checks him in an article about a product. Many of the refs that I checked do not verify the statements in the article. Lamona (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I should add that I did the usual G-search and found no significant independent sources. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Leap Motion: The sourcing presently in the article is all about Leap Motion, I'd redirect there. The Time magazine interview doesn't help notability, but does talk about Leap. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Chidananda S Naik

edit
Chidananda S Naik (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)

Some information on this guy: Chidananda made the sixteen minute short film Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know... in four days at the end of his one-year television course in the Film and Television Institute of India. The 16-minute film is based on a Kannada folk tale about a rooster not coming causing the sun not to rise in a village. It won the La Cinéf award at the Cannes Film Festival. This is the main content on doesn't warrant an article here. Anything (Essentially, just the award) you need about him is already online.

Almost every single source on the internet about Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know says short film wins Cannes award and nothing else. This is a case of WP:TOO EARLY. Why not wait till he directs feature films?

I am acting in good faith because two users see User_talk:Mushy_Yank#Notability_2 and second opinion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Does one film guarantee notability? claims that this person does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people).

The critical reception section is a stretch, no matter which Indian film won in Cannes, the comment would be the same. Another source about this guy's short film from Variety: [14] (again, only about the award). This AfD is a complete waste of time (caused by undo of redirect to Cinéfondation saying take it to AfD [15]) DareshMohan (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cinéfondation#Prize winners: A redirect seems like a good ATD so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#1. The significant award/honor here is 1st Prize - Premier Prix award from Cinéfondation, 2024 Cannes Film Festival, where the film was judged among 18 films globally. The award is well know and has it's own article on Wikipedia, Cinéfondation. There is coverage from multiple published sources that are also reliable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    I am not fiercely opposed to keep if everyone agrees he is notable but I think it should be made clear that 1) the award itself has no page, it's the foundation that promotes it which has 2) it is technically the film (a student film) that receives the award, not its director. You don't think that if we decide ANYBIO applies in this case, we would establish a precedent setting the bar extremely low? I do. I don't think that WP:DIRECTOR appplies anyway, coverage on the film being insufficiently significant imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) On second thoughts "unstriking" (virtually) my comment: I do consider that "coverage on the film (is) insufficiently significant imv." for the director to meet WP:DIRECTOR requirements. Not unsignificant nor trivial and mentioning a significant award, yes but not enough at least for WP:DIRECTOR, I should think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    The foundation is notable for the award it gives out. It was started in 1998 and the award has been given annually since then. The award, technically, belongs to the director for being the brains behind it, which is why the director's name is mentioned in the 2024 Cannes Film Festival and Cinéfondation article instead of the producer's name. Nandi Awards is only significant in Andhra Pradesh, whereas Cinéfondation brings coverage from Variety (magazine) as well as Hindustan Times, which would you consider a more popular award now?
    Coverage on the film being insufficiently significant? Here are some reliable sources that explicitly mention the film's name in the title: [16][17][18][19][20][21]. Expecting a breakdown, analysis or a review for a film that has only been screened once(AFAIK) is absurd. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    There are some articles that are indeed significant in the links you provided here. Not commenting on the rest, if I may. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    But since you kindly asked me (not sure the question was meaningful or not ironic): yes, obviously I find the Nandi way more "popular" than the Cinéfondation premier prix, yes. That's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. Here, the fact that this is a student short film is for me, so far, an issue, and I still favour a redirect, but as I said, not fiercely opposed to keep, especially in light of the sources you added presented here (most of them also being on the page, except if I am not mistaken, the article in the New India Express and DDNews). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) (edited my comment for clarification as my comment may have been misleading . Also adding that it's very likely that among the journalists or papers who mentioned the award and interviewed the director, not many if any at all have seen the film; and for me, this too is a problem; basically the question remains: can ANYBIO apply if the award, significant or not, is attributed to the work? Can WP:DIRECTOR apply in a case where coverage, although somehow significant as it addresses the film, is only mentions of the plot, the award, and in some sources of a few facts about production? Most sources are indeed generally reliable, although various articles are not being bylined, which I personally don't mind but is regularly pointed out negatively when it comes to Indian film, some users considering such coverage unreliable as a rule (I don't :D). I am still not sure, and still consider a redirect to be the best outcome. Maybe it's absurd to require further analysis of the work but can we really bypass that requirement just because the film has only been screened in Cannes, and not by the journalists who wrote the article, and is short? Not sure. Sorry for the cascading clarifications. I don't think I will change my mind from now, nor positively nor negatively. Even if one considers that it's the film after all that's notable and the article about the director is only here as a form of substitute for the article about the short, I am not certain that the premier prix at Cinéfondation, although significant, can be considered a major award nor that the coverage is substantial enough. Maybe the said coverage cannot be more than what it is now for obvious reasons, maybe, but still. I've done, again, some further searching and there's also coverage in French: https://lepetitjournal.com/inde/actualites/triomphe-indien-au-festival-de-cannes-2024-386190 or this blog; https://www.inde-cineskope.com/2024/05/cannes-2024-payal-kapadia-et-linde.html Good luck.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? There are many reliable sources for the subject and the film apart from the the six I have cited.
    The coverage that follows from someone meeting an additional criteria is just a bonus. Most Olympic athletes, older MLAs, sports personalities, politicians and judges do not have significant coverage. There are many articles with only database entries and primary sources as references simply because they meet an additional criteria and are presumed to be notable. The basic criterion that has been followed until now is that if an award has a standalone article and someone has received that award, they are presumed to be notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? is a very undue, rude and aggressive comment. I've searched for sources extensively THREE OR FOUR TIMES. Just look at my comments (and at 2 other venues) and presented sources myself (you're welcome). Again, the award has no page, and the film received the award, not him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    If you think that a regional award is more popular than Cinéfondation and that there is no substantial coverage when the coverage is not even required, then I cant help you. Ciao Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been posted on Talk:Cannes Film Festival, Talk:2024 Cannes Film Festival, Talk:Cinéfondation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film festivals task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards to draw a wider range of editors for discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: So he won a sidebar competition at Cannes. The film might be notable, this individual isn't. Redirect to the film's article, if it's deemed notable. This is too early to have a wikipedia article for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - clear pass of ANYBIO #1. If I were able to assess and read the non-English language sources, I'm confident there would be a clear NBASIC pass as well. ANYBIO doesn't require significant coverage of the person outside of the work, by the way - that is pretty much the whole point of that criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Newimpartial: Here is the sources in Indian language [22] which also just say that the film won the award. So is the short film notable or him notable -- I would say the short film maybe. DareshMohan (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    And I would agree with you, DareshMohan. ANYBIO clearly states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (emphasis mine), while all sources mention that the film received the award. And while I would certainly admit that for a student short film the award is significant, I wouldn't transfer that significance to the person directly. Even regarding the film, it is judged as a student film and I personally am reluctant to consider that in itself the award (although clearly an achievement) is enough to make the short notable (the notability for films is more strict and the award needs to be considered a major award, which this one is not imv). As for the director, even less so, then. Of course, he directed it, but then WP:DIRECTOR would be the relevant guideline. And see my view about that guideline applying or not, above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    I believe you both (Mushy Yank and DareshMohan) are misreading WP:DIRECTOR, the point of which is that when the works attributable to a particular creator are notable, that makes their creator notable. This is a major, and well-documented, limitation to the WP:NOTINHERITED principle, which continues to apply in the other direction - the non-notable films of a notable director are not necessarily notable.
    What is more, your interptetation of ANYBIO #1 does not, I think, reflect the general understanding. While for collective works, the distinction betweent the work and its creators may be significant for notability. However, the idea that the sole author of a book that wins a major award could somehow not therefore be notable does not reflect a coherent reading of NCREATIVE, in my view (which I believe is the general one). A film of this kind, where the director is universally regarded as its creator, follows the same logic as a book IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry to insist, but I think we've read WP:DIRECTOR quite correctly: our point is precisely that we don't think (at leat in my case) the evidence proving that that short student film is notable (work, singular, not plural in the present case) is compelling either, given the type of coverage or and the nature of the award it received. I've already repeated that various times. As for ANYBIO, feel free to change the wording or phrasing of the guideline if you think it's too limitative, but I've quoted the current one and it's pretty clear. The person has to receive the award and the said award (concerning persons, obviously) needs to be both well-known and significant. If you think that evidence shows that the work is clearly notable according to the guideline, let's agree to disagree. If you think that the award received by a film can be automatically transferred to its director and that this is the general and correct view, sure, I understand but that's not what the guideline says. If you think that that award is well-known and significant, sure, maybe, regarding student short/medium length films but certainly not for the notability of a "director" (who was still a student when he received it). That is for me setting the interpretative bar slightly too low but as I said above, not fiercely opposed to keep this if everyone agrees this inclusive interpretation is acceptable and the coverage about the film show it's a notable work. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see any reasonable doubt that Sunflowers... is a notable film. It clearly meets WP:NFILM #3, and I have seen for myself the multiple reliable sources documenting this claim to notability.
    And I will say again: the point of WP:CREATIVE, whether for authors or filmmakers, is to offer guidance for the atypical case documented at WP:INHERITED - people who are specifically responsible for a notable creative work, whether as authors or as film directors, are therefore notable. That's what a significant or well-known work is - a notable one - and there is no consensus to change this well-established standard to require more than one work for this principle to apply. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and discussion is continuing up to the time of relisting. We have basically two very different interpretations of policies and that is not easy to reconcile.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

CKM NSS Senior Secondary School

edit
CKM NSS Senior Secondary 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)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV found anywhere and the sources used are entirely primary sources. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yabani

edit
Yabani (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 not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Agastya Nanda

edit
Agastya Nanda (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 is not inherited–being a member of a notable family is not an exception, infact, it is the true definition. Having asserted above, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR because he only started in one or two films, and not multiple. Infact, most of the sources were about the family, and not this young actor. In regards to that, there is more to draftifying and marking as promised because this is a clear issue of WP:TOOSOON. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The Blue (film)

edit
The Blue (film) (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)

From the current state of the article, it is clear it doesn't meet WP:NFILM; no critical review from reliable sources or rating in any film rating platform. If sources are found, ping me. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

BigID

edit
BigID (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 to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Sources are _almost entirely_ related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Panorays

edit
Panorays (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 seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Israel. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Sources in the article mentioned the subject in passing, some are PR materials except one that give significant coverage and seems reliable. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Heid

edit
Alexander Heid (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)

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

  • Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
  • Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
  • Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [23][24] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

John Taylor (given name)

edit
John Taylor (given name) (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 indication that this is a double name for any of the entries, rather than just a given name/middle name combo. The bishop actually has a compound surname. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • What is the distinction between a "double name" versus a "given name/middle name combo"? Isn't a middle name just another given name (after the first name)?—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    A double name is a given name formed by two names, e.g. in either Pope John Paul, where John Paul is the given name. These are usually hyphenated. A middle name is a name that is given but is not a given name. People aren't typically referred to by it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    I've been in countries whose forms list "given names", where first name and middle name are expected to be listed. Some airlines' ticket systems do this too. —Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    Fair enough though I don't believe any of the people listed are likely to be referred to as "John Taylor" in daily life, especially not within the countries they are from. In any case the article's phrasing of John Taylor as a double name is incorrect. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    Fair enough though I don't believe any of the people listed are likely to be referred to as "John Taylor" in daily life ...: If that is indeed the case (no opinion), the respective page titles should be using parenthetical disambiguation with a more common name, and not attempting natural disambiguation with a supposed uncommon "John Taylor" in their page title. Per WP:NATDIS: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. —Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well I guess I'm not sure how many are commonly referred to with the "Taylor" included, but they would likely either be referred to by their full name or first and last name. It would be rather unusual for them to be known by just their first and middle name. I'd assume there's a reason why such indexes aren't typically created on Wikipedia. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • FWIW, there's similar pages at Category:Compound given names.—Bagumba (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be proven that any of these are compound names. We don't index by random given/middle name combinations. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Author of this post seems to have a strange desire to remove all links to the name 'John Taylor' from Wikipedia and has been editing out hatnotes denoting this from numerous articles to push this point of view. Given there are over 200 individuals named John Taylor on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor), this would make for a nonsensical decision, because this act is removing a useful search function. Author of this post has also has a history of edits being repeatedly reverted after deleting segments from numerous articles for seemingly no rationale other than styling Wikipedia to suit their personal preference and then nominating the articles for deletion when his / her edit wars don't get approved. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I gave you my rationale, not a "personal preference": WP:NAMB applies. There is no rational purpose for a hatnote to John Taylor in John "Pondoro" Taylor's article, for example. If a reader ends up in the latter article, they're not looking for some other person. FYI, I have finished removing those hatnotes; in a few cases, I replaced them with more sensible ones. The one in John Henry Taylor now points to another John Henry Taylor. Jack Taylor (1890s pitcher)'s hatnote points to Jack Taylor (1900s pitcher), and vice versa. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why you're so passionate about deleting things you dislike unless it's a spectrum issue. Yet given you've announced on my talk page that you're going to delete names, despite no consensus being agreed to on doing so, it seems you've set your mind to acting on whatever you please without considering the use of Wikipedia (especially for those new to the platform) towards anyone but yourself. Many would suggest you abide by the rules of considering the input of community discussions before engaging in mass deletions which will rightfully be reverted. MrEarlGray (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • You are verging on Wikipedia:No personal attacks with a non-existent "spectrum issue". An editing guideline, not my dislikes, drives my edits. And I'm not deleting names as you falsely claim, merely useless hatnotes. Also, you've been reverted by both me and an IP for your insistence on keeping a hatnote to John Taylor in John Taylor Gatto, which makes no sense. Finally, contrary to your inaccurate insinuation, I have created dozens of name lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'll go with whatever the community decides. However, I suspect the IP is a sockpuppet of yours. MrEarlGray (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete How many of these people were known as "John Taylor" vs. those were their first and middle names? I don't think this dab page is necessary beyond the ones we already have. Reywas92Talk 21:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: Notification of this discussion was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy.—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

D. Christopher Evans

edit
D. Christopher Evans (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 found no significant coverage after multiple searches. The current three sources in the article are an Access Denied page to the subject's non-independent biography, an article by the subject, and a local article about him being appointed. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep meets WP:GNG per these sources found and added to the article [25][26]. These sources give sigcov and seem credible to pass for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The first source was already in the article, and both sources are routine coverage. Both sources are just announcements of what the subject did in in his career - being hired and forming his team. SL93 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Being denied access to a source in not a proper reason for deleting an article. The source is still available in an archive (now added]. I find the coverage to be significant and dealing with more than routine about his career progression. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Thincat The access denied thing isn’t why it is a bad source, but rather that it isn’t independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, in itself it doesn't contribute much, if anything, towards notability but it provides some sufficiently verified information. Taken as a whole there is enough adequate information for a stub BLP. Personally, I prefer AFD discussions to include only matters that are relevant to article deletion but I realise that some people are not so well aware of our standards or they regard discussions as adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Mohamed Ashmalee

edit
Mohamed Ashmalee (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 subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians for the Maldives. Generally, ministers (and subordinates) there are not presumed notable. Otherwise, independent sources lack in-depth coverage on which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Maldives. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Cabinet ministers are generally presumed notable via WP:NPOL as national officeholder; is this ministerial position a cabinet position or is it a civil service one? Curbon7 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    Looks to be civil service (appointed bureaucrat, no mention of cabinet or the like). A presumption of notability does not apply here per the subnational politicians country listing for the Maldives. JFHJr (㊟) 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Sebastian Payne

edit
Sebastian Payne (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 of the individual is questionable, and as I've noted before his article is written like a resume. PlateOfToast (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant

edit
Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant (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)

Unless this is the sewage plant that made the Ninja Turtle, I can see no reason for there to be a stub article for a wastewater treatment plant. I've done a bit of news search and there doesn't seem to be anything spectacular or of note regarding this plant, other than it opened on the birthday of a city/government official. It may have been the largest STP in Asia at one point. Still, I can only find 2 articles that mention that, one in 2014 (and even that article is mostly hidden behind a paywall) and one saying that a scheduled STP in Delhi would surpass it in all areas. Lindsey40186 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Spanish musicians

edit
List of Spanish musicians (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:SALAT, the scope of the list is too broad. There are more than 2300 pages in Category:Spanish musicians, this list is useless without further subdivision. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists of people, Lists, and Spain. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Could be subdivided alphabetically when needed Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Template:Musicians by country shows these articles are common, wouldn't make sense to have one country not on the list. Being incomplete is not a valid reason to delete any article, nor is the arguments "its useless". If there was a bot someone could run to grab basic information from the infoboxes of the articles linked to, and add that to table formation, years active, what type of music they play, etc, it'd be more useful. Dream Focus 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    My argument is not that the list is incomplete. A list of 2300 entries would be far too wieldy, and the potential entries that do not yet have a Wikipedia article are even more. According to WP:SALAT Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections, hence my comment about the usefulness of the list. In particular, I am concerned by having an endless and incomplete list of blue links, with no additional information, and no curation. The argument "these articles are common" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of these lists were created in the early years of Wikipedia (when they maybe contained only a handful of entries) and have been kept per status quo, but now have no reason to exist. Broc (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    The size of a list is never a valid reason for deletion. Many list simply break off into smaller list when they get too large. List of aircraft, Lists_of_stars#By_proximity, etc. Dream Focus 00:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRIT -- more specifically, poorly defined inclusion criteria -- what does originating from Spain mean? If a person is born in Spain but moves to another country at an early age, does that count? Or vice versa? What about at a later age? What about citizenship change? What about very old entries where "Spain" then wasn't the same as "Spain" now? Using modern political boundaries as a subdivider is inherently problematic, which brings to my next point -- this is also an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no end to the different combination of ways you could subdivide. Is this using "musician" to subdivide a "list of Spaniards", or is it using "Spanish" to subdivide a "list of musicians"? Why not by style/genre instead? Or birth year? Or alphabetical? This sort of random intersection of properties is best left for Wikidata. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - This debate is probably going to end with "no consensus" due to conflicting WP policies. This list of Spanish musicians probably violates WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT because it's just a poorly-defined and never-ending pile of blue links. On the other hand, different WP policies would support this article's existence because of many similar list articles found at Template:Musicians by country. But if you browse all the other country lists, most of them have the exact same problems as this one. I submit that this is a bigger policy challenge beyond assessing the usefulness of this list about Spain, but an AfD discussion almost never results in deeper discussions of larger policy conflicts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Doomsdayer520 I do not see any conflicting policy. I see WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT showing that this stand-alone list should not exist because too broad in coverage and with no clear inclusion criterion. I even see troubles with WP:NLIST as I could not find a single source that publishes a full list of Spanish musicians. I see many entries in Template:Musicians by country that could possibly deleted under the same arguments. Those lists have varied levels of curation and subcategorization, hence might deserve separate discussions. What would you suggest is the right forum for discussion, if not AfD? Broc (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Broc - I agree with your assessment, but look at the "Keep" votes here which are also based on policy. I've seen this happen many times before and it will happen again. Here people will argue about this individual article and nobody will address bigger issues, probably not even the Admin who is guaranteed to say "No Consensus" at the end. Meanwhile, there are folks who discuss policies for lists and others who discuss policies for categories and others who discuss policies for templates etc. etc. etc. Just imagine getting them coordinated. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Standard list for a topic notable as a set, with a clear defining criteria.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. Please see Template:Musicians by country, There's a lot of these lists, and a random look at some seems to indicate that none of these have sourcing. They're just existing lists by country. Some are just alphabetical lists, and others include really nice images. If we keep these lists, I don't see how we can cherry pick and eliminate certain ones, but keep the others. — Maile (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dreamfocus. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
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.

1895 Pacific Tigers football team

edit
1895 Pacific Tigers football 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)

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)
@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge now that a target article has been created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Personally, while I appreciate the work put in by jweiss11, I don't think that the combined article meets the WP:NSEASONS due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Ali Sher Bengali

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

To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. Clearly passes Wikipedia's minimum requirement criteria WP:GNG. also there are many offline sources are available, for more information please see WP:OFFLINE. Some of ref are 1, 2, 3, 4. Thank you. 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Vilangkattuvalasu

edit
Vilangkattuvalasu (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)

Orphaned stub with no sources. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Geonames.nga.mil reports that the village (which it spells Vilangāttuvalasu) is located at 11°06′22″N 77°45′48″E / 11.10611°N 77.76333°E / 11.10611; 77.76333 14145226 N (Approved) . Google Maps shows a temple in the village with the address 4Q47+HCR, vilankattu valasu, Sivagiri, Tamil Nadu 638109, India. So if that is correct, we also know the village's PIN code. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    Delete - I don’t agree that these are substantial enough to show notability. The temple is the only place in that location that uses this name, whereas all other buildings surrounding it use the name Kodimudi, the taluk and the taluk headquarters. The temple name may be user generated and may not reflect official designation. Kazamzam (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete - I couldn't find anything in a search of the 2011 India Census data. Klbrain (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

edit
Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (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)

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete or merge into the parent. Quite so. It doesn't address a notable subject. The page largely revolves around and is organised based on one Washington Post piece, as broadcast loudly and proudly by its horribly unencyclopedic first sentence. "Denial" topics normally only emerge when supported by the weight of significant scholarship. What we have here is instead a collection of WP:NOTNEWS-flouting material, with one US news piece used as a washing line to string up a mixed bag of Israeli news pieces WP:COATRACK-style. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ijey6458/2_days_ago&oldid=1116783442"