Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 30	August 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Shabana Shajahan Aryan

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

Previously deleted and salted as Shabana Shajahan/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Shajahan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead roles In notable series have her clearly meet WP:NACTOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur with Mushy Yank. At least two co-leading roles in the television series Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Fulfills NACTOR#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Actress had been in 2 Tamil language TV shows where she played lead roles but the sources on the page are focused on her personal marital life than her career. Source 1 is about her dress outfits. Source 2 is on her wedding anniversary. Source 3 is on her marriage trouble. Source 4 is on her childhood picture. Source 5 is passing mention on likes dislikes. Source 6 is on show going off-air. Source 7, 8 and 9 are on her marriage troubles. There is not a single source with indepth coverage on her career. I did not find any reliable secondary independent source that has indepth coverage on her career as an actress and the reason could be that her career is not yet worthy of notice to deserve attention or to be recorded but voting to draftify if anyone can find sources on her career and improve the page. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Could editors arguing to Keep offer a response to this source review? How would you feel about draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There's a fair amount of (albeit tabloid-esque coverage) in news outlets, indicating some sort of notability. For example, this Times of India article goes in-depth about how she celebrated her birthday. Non-notable people wouldn't get anywhere close to that level of coverage. There's also a whole bunch of stuff about her wedding ([1][2][3][4]). Combined with meeting WP:NACTOR I think notability is met and there should be enough to write an article. C F A 💬 02:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Birthday celebration, giving thanks on instagram and the kind of gift received by spouse, these are not the kind of coverage needed to satisfy notability. The page has no source with indepth coverage on her career. The page needs to be re-written and sourced with reliable secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas Film Critics Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable local organization fails WP:NORG. There's no WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Sources in the article are either affiliated, industry blogs (i.e. WP:TRADES) or tangentially mention the organization. Sources outside the article are principally limited to fan blogs. There's certainly no sigcov in "media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)" as required per WP:AUD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Film, Organizations, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not a notable film critics association; fails the guidelines as outlined in the nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per NORG. No significant coverage about the organization. I found some blogs listing award winners and that's about it. C F A 💬 02:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ara Najarian

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

Non-notable local official. His city council position doesn't satisfy NPOL and he doesn't seem to meet GNG otherwise. Of the 6 sources cited on the page: one is his page on a database of registered lawyers, one is the Ohio Birth Index, one is his resume, one is his campaign website, and one is his bio on the city of Glendale's official website; the only actual news article cited is a WP:ROTM article about an election he ran in. I can't really find anything better on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Purely local coverage [5], [6], confirmation of election wins. Nothing beyond routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Transportation, California, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC and likely WP:GNG. (And a little worried that there has been insufficient WP:BEFORE, possibly because there is also a Los Angeles Times sports writer with the same name, so it generates a ton of irrelevant coverage if you don't use additional search parameters.) Najarian has been vocal about advocating Armenian-American issues – Glendale has one of the largest Armenian communities outside Armenia (and this Los Angeles Times article where he is quoted is just the tip of the iceberg) – and an initial 15-minute search yielded coverage of his meetings with the prime minister of Armenia, and he is also frequently covered in the Armenian-American community press extending beyond Glendale. It will take a long time to sort through all the coverage to identify the "best 3", but this is more a case of having to spend time to search, sort, assess and improve, rather than agonizing that this four-time mayor and councilmember of Glendale has been completely ignored by the media outside of Glendale.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one: "Najarian gets presidential welcome in Armenia" which appeared in both the Los Angeles Times and the Glendale News-Press. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every local official is automatically notable. IT's absolutely worth pointing out that he's received no coverage outside of Glendale. His meeting with the president of Armenia helps, but it doesn't automatically entitle him to a Wikipedia page (even if this meeting was extremely notable, which doesn't seem to be the case, it still wouldn't make Najarian himself notable, per WP:1E). Him being "mentioned" in an LA Times article is also not especially convincing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly WP:1E if his official visits to Armenia were covered in both 2010 and 2018. Anyway in future I would recommend trying search engines other than Google. A quick Google search will tell you it doesn't function very well anymore as a search engine. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can find articles that are more in-depth than mentions by searching site:latimes.com "ara najarian" on Google, such as Ara Najarian tapped as Glendale mayor for the fourth time. toweli (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toweli: I wouldn't call that "in-depth" coverage, it's a pretty short article about him becoming mayor. Seems pretty run of the mill to me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it was in-depth, I said that it was more in-depth than mentions. I'm not sure whether he's notable or not, because I haven't really looked much. That's why I didn't write "keep". toweli (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and different interpretations of the sources available. I'll try one more relisting to see if we can get additional participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Baril

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

After extensive searching for WP:SIGCOV in multiple newspaper archives, I believe the subject lacks the coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG. This obit [[7]] is rather short and doesn't make mention of his NFL career. Besides the obit, there are some passing/routine mentions like [[8]], [[9]], [[10]] and [[11]] but from what I see it is all trivial. While the subject played 16 NFL games, they took place in the early years of the league when the popularity of the league was nowhere near what it is today. I don't see a clear WP:ATD here but am open to the possibility. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The early years of NFL were so different from NFL in the 1960s–on as to be totally different enterprises. It's not surprising that no SIGCOV exists and that his participation wasn't even noteworthy enough to include in his obit. JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time currently took look for sources for this (plus the Newspapers.com outage). Could we draftify this like we did for Ainer Cleve? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drunvalo Melchizedek

AfDs for this article:

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

It's regrettable that this page has remained on Wikipedia for so long. It relies exclusively on primary sources and blog posts. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There are no serious reviews of his self published books. Consensus was deletion after a previous nomination in 2012. Not much has changed. He might be well known in New Age pseudoscience circles but there is nothing of substance for a Wikipedia page. Ynsfial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, and North America. Ynsfial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AFD is inaccurate as this is not the same page from 2012. It was recreated from scratch with available info in 2019. Also, the AFD does not actually give any specific grounds for deletion except what sounds like personal disdain, which WP needs to be above. In fact, the deletion submission itself admits topical notability. Whether said topical area is bad or good is not relevant to encyclopedic inclusion. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 12:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to give my AFD a second read. My specific grounds for deletion are clearly stated. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, which I determined after checking for coverage of him online. Second of all, as an author and researcher, his work lacks serious reviews, though I recognize this is just one aspect of author notability criteria that he fails to meet. He doesn't seem to meet the others either. I'm not sure what you mean about topical notability. A TikToker every other teen is familiar with is well known to many people. But if there isn't much serious coverage of them they aren't encyclopedically notable. If you believe he meets the notability criteria, please provide a few credible sources this.Ynsfial (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first inclination would be WP:AUTHOR, in that, at least in his field (however dubious), he is considered a significant figure. This is rather bolstered, I would say, by the number of the independent secondary sources already cited. Additionally, that his work has been the inspiration for notable artists as diverse as Tool and Willow Smith lends some amount of significant influence. But again, even your nomination concedes that "he might be well known in New Age... circles" which would seem to render the question moot; even you're not entirely certain of his non-notability, which I still think shoots significant holes through any WP:NN argument.

As for WP:RS, I would point to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Parity_of_sources:
Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well.

Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the guideline concerning parity of sources. Please provide 3 of the independent secondary sources cited that you think best establish notability and we can discuss it from there.Ynsfial (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS - I don’t see a single reliable source, unless you consider Jezebel to be reliable. This is in no was close to passing notability. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novotel Nha Trang

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

Fails GNG. Nothing in google news and unreferenced for over 13 years. Despite in the last AfD saying lots of sources would exist, I found none. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Vietnam. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Their own website and the various booking sites are what come up; no news articles, no books about this. Appears to be a standard hotel. No sourcing and no claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Smolarczyk

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article on this footballer. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Germany. JTtheOG (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I admit I do not have more sources that would qualify for sig. cov. either. I have saved the article source for later use, but feel free to go ahead with the deletion. Lisbean (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Céphas Bansah

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

Lacks notability, reliable sources. Page was probably created in relation to Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe which was deleted in this Afd. Seems to be another one of those fake titles selling businesses.

Account that started the page was blocked for being a promotion only account and other CoI editors are in the edit history. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ghana and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject. He has been given significant coverage by plenty of German sources: documentary film King Bansah and His Daughter, Der Spiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Das Parlament, The Local, Die Rheinpfalz, Mannheimer Morgen, Lausitzer Rundschau, Deutsche Handwerks Zeitung, and Goethe-Institut

-StellarHalo (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21st Asianet Film Awards

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

One of many WP:CFORKS for Asianet Film Awards created by now blocked/banned user. Sources I find in a WP:BEFORE are not significant enough to show notability for this segment of the award. The information is also covered in the main pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted or the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST for navigation reasons. Not all years for the awards have their page but that's not a reason to delete those that exist. See category. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list, it is an event. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only you had opened the link to the guideline you might have had a chance to understand what it says. And, on top of this, your comment is completely absurd. The page uses table format and is about an event. It's not the event itself. But maybe you consider, for example, that BLP pages about actors are the actors themselves and not articles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This is about an event with a list of winners. It is not a list article. I am curious how you know if I opened any link or not or why you want to be uncivil. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you indeed open(ed) the link you probably (would have) realise(d) that WP:SPLITLIST does not deal only with "list articles"/"lists" and basically says the same thing as what you yourself say at the end of your rationale, from what I understand of it. You indeed explain that "information is also covered in the main (s)pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted" (if such is the case, it would seem better to redirect rather than delete, but, anyway), but according to WP:SPLITLIST, it would be even better if one could do as you suggest at the end of the same sentence and edit the page(s), as "the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed."

I don't "want to be uncivil" but, as your latest reply perfectly shows, by the way, your initial reply 1) wasn't actually commenting on anything I had referred to (so I assumed you didn't open the link, and one might even assume you still haven't) 2) offered a completely false and absurd dichotomy, on which I commented with a humorous similar dichotomy, obviously not seriously implying that you do really believe that actors are pages. I apologise if you thought I was saying this seriously and if indeed you have opened the page but did not see it was not dealing with lists only. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Just a note that your humor does not come across as humor. It comes across as advertorial which takes away from my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. But again, I understand now based on your explanation. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, effectively unsourced. Snarky mind-reading comments not withstanding, even a breakout list requires reasonable sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

draft: ? I mean there are sources about who won what award, but just having a wall of text in fancy boxes isn't helping. This needs adequate sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ciberbit

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

Written like an advertisement and fails WP:NCORP with a lack of any significant coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Software, and Portugal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is known for its cooperation with Microsoft and its influence on the IT industry in the country. --Loewstisch (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's still no evidence it passes WP:NCORP, which is a requirement for a standalone page, a vague claim it is influential is not enough. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Known for influence in the country, with no coverage about it? Can you provide any articles about this influence? Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Literally no coverage other than their website found. Working with Microsoft in this case means publishing games on their platform, which isn't notable. They make software, but don't describe what it is or why it's notable, further hindering our efforts to prove notability. I can't find anything about this commercial enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability anywhere. I'm not even sure if it still exists. Looks like a relic from the past when notability standards were much less strict. C F A 💬 01:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bachelor's degree or higher

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this term is just a term and not a topic worthy of having its own article. This should be deleted or merged or redirected or moved to Wiktionary. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are some more good sources that substantiate this as an inherently notable topic with its own history and use. Otherwise it's a trivial phrase that doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to a suitable target, per nom. Sdkb ^talk 23:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. If someone wants to create a Wiktionary entry I would support a soft redirect to there. C F A 💬 00:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at what's linking to this page, I don't think turning it into a redirect would be the right solution, unless a Wiktionary entry gets created. The incoming links from College graduate should be redirected to a page like Academic degree or Undergraduate degree, whereas the direct links are mostly U.S.-specific usages referring to Bachelor's degree. hinnk (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakri pakohi

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bihar. C F A 💬 00:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed as a panchayat under the name of Pakari Pakohi, so satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuleap

AfDs for this article:

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

I note the two prior AfDs. I also note the banner at the head containing multiple flags for improvements not addressed since September 2018. I suggest that they have not been addressed because they cannot be addressed. Fails WP:GNG, is improperly sources, and is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Computing, Software, and France. C F A 💬 00:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie

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

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Filming has started and coverage existing online seems significant enough. Redirect or Draft if other users don't think it is. Very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film combines live action with animation like the TV series. Because of that, live-action filming is is occurring right now. The Media Expert (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure

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

Fails WP:GNG, with few reviews or significant coverage in reliable sources. This is one of the only reviews I could find, and it's in a publication of uncertain reliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Portugal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lists PTGamers.com and Gamerstek.com under external links. Primary source [12] IgelRM (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sites are now dead, which doesn't speak towards their reliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep - Gamerstek review is archived here: [13]. According to their about page, they had a video game section in Destak newspaper, which indicates some sort of reliability. However, it's a moot point if there are no other potential reliable sources since 1 review is not enough. PTGamers.com review ref seems completely dead, but looking at their archived main site ([14]) there doesn't seem to be an about page or similar, I can't find anything to indicate any reliability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that Push Start ref, which is an independently published digital magazine, seems unreliable to me looking at the editorial page: [15]. --Mika1h (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerstek and Mega Score reviews are enough for GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The game got in-depth coverage in a June 2004 issue of Mega Score, including an interview (p.30, 31), and a review (p.70, 71). The only other coverage I was able to find is a brief mention of the game in a 2021 article from the newspaper Observador about video games about Portugal. It's possible that the game got coverage in Portuguese newspapers at the time of release (Newspapers.com has no Portuguese newspapers unfortunately and I wouldn't know where else to look), as the Observator article and the interview in Mega Score indicate that the game was partially funded by Soure city hall. Waxworker (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a dead link from TSF (radio station). It might be useful to mention the game on the Visão article. IgelRM (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews presented above. Two reliable reviews, good enough for me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews presented show the page can be retained. Add the 1 paragraph in Observador (linked above by Waxworker) https://observador.pt/2021/03/17/nao-e-so-em-civilization-vi-ha-mais-4-series-de-videojogos-onde-pode-controlar-portugal/ ; a 5-page article dedicated to the game: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235915242_Um_estudo_das_dinamicas_de_apropriacao_do_jogo_Portugal_1111_-_A_Conquista_de_Soure_em_contexto_escolar and I think that should be enough. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BioSense

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

Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aktas

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Sources in other language WPs aren't reliable. Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kazakhstan. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly exists as a recognised settlement so satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other language WPs (kk, ru, ...) list disambiguation pages for multiple instances of Aktas/Ақтас/Актас, and there are reliable references to places with the name as well. It seems very likely that at least one notable place with this name exists. RickScott (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diadibeny Gandega

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

This is long-term unreferenced, so I tried to find sources to add. I couldn't find sources online to confirm it meets WP:NPLACE/WP:GNG. References in other WP languages are mirror sites, or it came up that the sites were privacy concerns. Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source on French Wikipedia shows it exists. The map shows it is clearly a separate settlement. Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prentiss M. Brown Honors Center & Astronomical Observatory

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

Contested PROD. This is a non-notable building at a small liberal arts college. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Education, United States of America, and Michigan. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Albion College: I don't see why this can't be a small paragraph under the article about the college. The historical plaque implies notability, but there's just not enough sourcing about this for a stand-alone article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merging because all of the sourcing about the building is primary, and it would therefore be undue to add this material. If someone had straight up added this to the Albion College article instead of creating this article, I would have removed it with that rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree that historical plaques imply notability. They're easier to get than you'd think and often used for promotion. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oaktree b. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjith Israel

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

It is only a beginner who is a volunteer, only one or two sources and only a small mention is included in the reference. Does not prove other notability. WP:ANYBIO,WP:GNG are failed. ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Kerala. Spworld2 (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 103.99.192.2 (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He has misguided the whole government machinery and shrewdly overplayed and everything went wrong everywhere. His claims are but trivial Advggopannair (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 20:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Park (Sunyani, Ghana)

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

Fails GNG, no inline refs or citations, but contains content that can be mergeable into another article. Intrisit (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Jawad

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

Doesnt meet GNG, probable vanity page, all but one source are either IMDB (non-RS) and her Youtube Nswix (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Iraq, and United Arab Emirates. Nswix (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This press release is all I can find [16] and it seems unlikely to be the same person... Regardless, the sourcing used in the article isn't adequate. Imdb is not a RS. I can't find any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Signally fails WP:GNG. Even in Arabic, I could only find a single interview piece in Al Etihad back in 2010. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic gymnastics at the Summer Olympics

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

Near duplicate of tables seen at Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics. Narrowly focuses on artistic gymnastics, but not enough substance to strengthen the stand-alone article or page. Well, the tables of men's and women's medal counts separate each other in this article, but I can't help wonder whether to move the separate tables of medal counts into another page, Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics. Oh well, default to merging into that article if uncontested. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Olympics, and Lists. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see the point of a separate page here, entirely duplicative. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heard Natural Science Museum and Wildlife Sanctuary

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. A small nature preserve and museum in Texas without national or state-wide coverage. The refs are all either self-published (company website), or routine local coverage in the D/FW area. Looking at the edit history, it was mostly written by Sanctuary.p, which appears to be an account affiliated with the museum, based on its name and only having contributed to this article. Article appears to be promotional in tone. HertzDonuts (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. HertzDonuts (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against superheroes

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

Article looks to be a relic in many regards of a time when articles saw far less scrutiny on their suitability for inclusion. Quite frankly it is clearly more of a fan essay, filled with significant amounts of original research. Despite coming to over 7000 words there are a mere 30 citations evident, of which there only appears to be a single source from a reliable, third-party source and the rest fanblogs or simply the primary source (i.e. the comic itself).

The article in question has been marked for improvement for nearly a decade now and it has failed to be done, instead only slowly growing and growing as more fan-essay content is occasionally added. This to me suggests there is little room to be improved to meet Wikipedia core policies on original research, verfiability, and neutral point of view.

Given the complete failure to meet any of wikipedia's policies I move to delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Discrimination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, possibly rename to something more clearly fiction-oriented. Discrimination against "differently abled" individuals whose difference happens to be a superpower is a very well-established and well-examined literary device. BD2412 T 21:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 the problem is that the article quite clearly isn't one aimed of being an encyclopaedic detailing of superheroism as a literary device to examine attitudes towards marginalised groups, and how that's been examined critically and/or academically. Instead it's effectively just an extremely verbose list of "every form of fictional legislation around superheroes in every publication users can identify, regardless of what that legislation does or doesn't represent".

I think a great example of how completely unsuitable it is can be seen in how it documents both the Mutant Control Act (which was used to examine issues such as authoritarianism) and a fictional court case in The Incredibles seeing superheroes being liable for the damage they cause as both being examples of "discrimination against superheroes". Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the redirect target of a number of enumnerated fictional elements like the Keene Act--check 'What links here'. Just that one fictional act is covered (1, 2, 3 from the first 5 results) by multiple sources indexed by Google Scholar. The nomination's other arguments are non-policy based; the nominator should have spent more time with BEFORE rather than arguing against the possibility of improvement without any understanding of the article or its source material. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find you're the one making non-policy based arguments. I have literally argued how it fails to meet any of the three core Wikipedia policies, all you've done is link three paywalled journals asserting they justify the article because they may contain references to Watchmen without actually demonstrating from those sources how they'd merit inclusion or the retention of the entire article as opposed to a few lines about one comic series that would therefore merit inclusion simply on that series' existing article.

You could also consider working on your obvious patronising attitude at the same time... Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should apologize: I'm sorry that your failure to BEFORE irritates me to the point I begin to confuse poor nomination with intent to damage Wikipedia. I should AGF more and focus on educating you, even though you've been around long enough that I think you should know better.

So, let's start at the beginning: Does this article suck? Sure. Should it be deleted? Well, let's first look at the bad arguments you advanced: Age of article, age of improvement templates, length/citation ratio, and confusing lack of improvement with lack of potential for improvement. None of those is a reason for deletion; all are instead reasons for improvement, all can be fixed with regular editing. "But wait!" I imagine you retorting, "What about DEL#REASON number eight?" Therein lies the only policy-based argument you've advanced, that it doesn't have any RS coverage. So, lesson summary "It sucks!" is not a reason for deletion; "It can't possibly ever not suck!" is. (Oh, and "It's named wrong" that you advanced in a reply is also a good reason to change the name, not delete the article).

This brings us to WP:BEFORE. Did you do one? If you did, you didn't describe it. I did one search on one of the various instantiations of this concept, on Google Scholar only, and found three resources. Per WP:PAYWALL the fact that you can't read them says nothing about their suitability. Now, they may not in fact be suitable--what you got from me was a fraction of the effort you should have expended, shoehorned into my lunch break, hence the relative brevity of my post.

So how to do better in the future? Two things: Do BEFORE, and look at 'what links here' to see if, instead of a slowly growing essay, this is a target for the merger of other 'meh' articles in the past. For example, the Keene Act which still remains a redirect to a stubbified article that does not now mention it, and which the three references I documented mention or discuss. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just really tripling down on the "you are stupid and beneath me" huh?

Well have a nice day and I hope you work on the god-complex you have. Rambling Rambler (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not policy based? It doesn't meet notability standards, that's the bare minimum we apply around here. This "essay" contains no critical discussion of this concept, nor is it sourced to anything reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand WP:NEXIST, right? You can say the article in its current state doesn't demonstrate notability, but you cannot truthfully say the concept is non-notable, because, well, it is, and the nom should have done enough research to understand that per BEFORE.Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This in-world essay only describes Marvel characters; rather long and rambling, not suitable for a general encyclopedia. The sourcing confirms nothing notable and most aren't even RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been stubbified; your critiques no longer apply to the article as edited (presumably) after your statement. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like a splendid topic to have an article on, provided that there are sources discussing the overarching topic. Where are those sources? I have spent some time cleaning up the article now by removing unsourced material, improper reliance on primary sources, in-universe plot details and real-world speculation about upcoming such, and so on. Not much remains, and there turned out to not be any sources on the overarching topic cited. We can of course not simply take a bunch of examples from works of fiction that we as editors have noticed and decide that they collectively form a particular overarching topic with a scope that we define—this is not TV Tropes, and here on Wikipedia that would be WP:Improper editorial synthesis. We don't do media analysis ourselves here, we leave that to the sources. It's also difficult to emphasize enough just what an absolute mess of WP:Writing about fiction violations the article was in when it was nominated. The amount of WP:INUNIVERSE perspective was nothing short of astounding. TompaDompa (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify While it could be a workable topic, it's just too threadbare to make sense as a standalone article and in its current state, almost certainly needs to be merged. We'll see if it can be accepted from the draft namespace once it's properly expanded to article length. I would also support a name change to Discrimination in superhero fiction to make it sound less blatantly in-universe. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Stubbify as TompaDompa did, or draftify, but certainly not both. Again, note how many different incoming redirects there are to this page. If it were a choice between the two, stubbifying is certainly less disruptive to superhero coverage. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, both makes sense. If it was in the state it was before TompaDompa took an axe to it, I'd have certainly said delete as an unencyclopedic page. Though it may have been better to have deleted it and have TompaDompa start over with a new article, since the scope changed so drastically from a single plot point to an overall examination of discrimination. Either way, it is not a necessary part of superhero coverage as it can easily be explained in superhero fiction#common plot elements and there is plenty of space to do so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've asked Wikiproject Comics to come and improve the article during this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Superhero#Minority superheroes (that section might have to be renamed to something like Superhero#Social concerns though). I can see this as a notable and encyclopedic topic, but the article is currently not long enough to need a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mbugua

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

No satisfactory sources in the article, and a quick search didn't find any. Note: this was prompted by a request at the help desk on behalf of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Law, and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this in the help desk, for me personally, I suggest keeping the article, my reason is because she co-founded (is that correct?) the biggest law firm in Kenya, and is one of the top 40 most popular women from Kenya.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheNuggeteer, more important than your opinion on this subject is how you would counter the reasons offered in the deletion rationale. What sources support your claim of notability? Please be specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sources 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the sources which prompt me to give the "keep" reply. She does not seem notable outside the business, I'll give you that, but being one of the top 40 women from a country is enough for me.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anukul Munshi

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

Another non-notable "Mother of Pearl" artist, part of a walled garden of articles on the Munshi/Munsi family. Likely a UPE or COI creation. A BEFORE search returns nothing on this person, and I was unable to verify any of the claims nor the awards. Relies on one author's unverifiable writings on the Munsi/Munshi family that is used in all of these articles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Visual arts, India, and West Bengal Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are only two sources listed in references, and they appear to credit the same author, so there are not multiple sources here. They are also apparently offline sources that I am unable to find any record of, so I am not sure that they are independent or reliable or even exist. I have been unable to find any sources. Elspea756 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Concept

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing relies entirely on interviews with people connected with the company, announcements, or mentions in passing due to their involvement in organising events, those sources do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Organizations, and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- just wanted to contribute as the writer of the article. I wrote it after reading about the company's focus on work in the black diaspora, which aligned with a wiki project I've been involved with on and off. I did look closely at the sources for this article, because I know the ones I was using to establish notability (references 1-3) have interview content within them, but in looking at each article overall it seemed that there was significant content outside of the interview quotations, and that that content contained independent analysis- including looking at the wider industry context they are operating in, with statistics etc included in that. I also looked at the publications and writers to make sure they were both independent from the subject and engage in fact checking as part of their editorial process. I know 100% interview content does not establish notability, but I feel it is fairly uncommon for independent articles on companies or the people behind them not to structure their articles around a fair amount of interview content. The fact the company were also included in a way that was more than a passing mention in other major stories on Afrobeats, like the Rolling Stone one, suggested to me notability within the Afrobeats industry. Anyway, I just wanted to engage and outline why I used the sources I did. Thanks Thebookstamper (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baronial Order of Magna Charta

(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. Presently, the only references in the article are non-independent. toweli (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Organizations, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. toweli (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBhasha

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Ampercent.com doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. Maybe this Wikipedia-related article should be moved to Wikipedia namespace instead of deleted? Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep: I found a full article from the Independent. However, that's just one. The article cites a reviewed paper by the authors of the program; I don't think that (or Wikimedia Diff) counts. There are quite a bit of trivial mentions in other papers. Meanwhile, The Hindu and Time of India each devote a paragraph. I feel like there's marginal notability here. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mifflin, Indiana

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

Another case where it appears to have been only a post office. No other info found. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interestingly, there is a sign there that says "Welcome to Mifflin" [17] which was added sometime between 2007 and 2023. The restaurant that likely put it up claim the area is "Still known as Mifflin" [18] and there appears to be an article about Mifflin. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, there is an article from February 2010 from the Clarion News. Newspapers.com access for Wikimedia users seems to be down but here it is.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That article alone would suggest a WP:GEOLAND pass. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alastor Cluster

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, without enough significant coverage. WP:BEFORE is hard because "Alastor" is the name of the books, which already have articles, but not enough to separate the location as its own subject. I would accept a redirect to Gaean Reach, which is questionably notable but at least increases the probability of expansion and improvement. Jontesta (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and redirect to Gaean Reach, of which it is a subtopic, both in terms of the fictional universe and the novel series. — The Anome (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gaean Reach per The Anome. C F A 💬 01:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Anome @CFA But, sorry, how is that notable? The series might be, but fictional locations almost never are. I'll be AfDing that one shortly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Alastor trilogy (or something similar) and refocus topic on the book series. Based on Template:Jack_Vance, all of the author's book series have a stand-alone article (makes sense), so why shouldn't this one? – sgeureka ^t•c 11:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second squereka idea. The trilogy may be notable; the setting does not. This needs to be rewritten from WP:FANCRUFT into encyclopedic article about the series. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Knob, Indiana

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

The reference given doesn't pan out per se but elsewhere in the same work it lists the place as a "postal village", which is to say, just a post office. There is nothing significant at the spot. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found an article describing the town from 1904 [19]. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Seiya antagonists

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

WP:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There is already a list of List of Saint Seiya characters that is unsourced. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to make WP:INDISCRIMINATE repeated articles about the same topic unless there is evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Saint Seiya characters. One list of characters per show is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony villains

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

WP:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There is already a list of List of My Little Pony characters with its own errors and problems. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to arbitrarily make repeated articles about the same topic unless there is WP:SIGCOV to justify it. Jontesta (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The listed characters from the older series appear to be all one-shot villains that appeared for a single movie/storyline, that have no notability or coverage in reliable sources, and are covered in the main articles for the movies/TV specials they appeared in where applicable. The reoccurring villains from the newer series are already covered on the appropriate character lists and articles for their respective series. This current list is completely unsourced, and I am not finding any sources that would indicate that the topic of villains from throughout the multiple iterations of the MLP franchise are notable as its own group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. This article is a great labor of love but I really don't see anything indicating any independent notability for it as its own list. jp×g 🗯️ 07:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SPLITLIST might apply. Redirect and merge seems warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. One list of characters per show is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wcquidditch. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, similiar to the case of List of Doctor Who villains despite this being of a better quality. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blue Beetle enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There isn't anything other than a WP:DIRECTORY of appearances, because there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Beetle to preserve the editing history in case it could be used again. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realtors Association of Edmonton

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable organization. I've only been able to find trivial mentions in unrelated articles and this article in Real Estate Magazine that arguably isn't significant coverage anyways. C F A 💬 15:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable in terms of historical significance to the region and membership size. Mazshan (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOR One-sentence article that tells us the Realtors Association of Edmonton exists, and the only source is the Association itself. Also a direct External Link to the association. — Maile (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Canada. C F A 💬 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Real Estate Magazine article is likely not independent either. The magazine does advertising and sponsored content, and the article does not have a listed author. REM (magazine) was similarly targeted by advertising, just like Realtors Association of Edmonton was. I don't see significant coverage of the magazine either so I may take it to an AfD as well. C F A 💬 16:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you failed to check for previous organization names, and the organization is very easy to find cited in independent articles, see below. Please do your due diligence properly.

Edmonton Journal article mentioning organization

CBC article mentioning organization

CTV article mentioning organization

DailyHive mention under a past name

MoneySense article mentioning organization Mazshan (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well aware that there have been trivial mentions of this organization in reliable sources. Those do not count towards notability, though. Organizations must have received significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As I mentioned above, the only possible "significant coverage" is in a non-independent publication. C F A 💬 16:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not what a due diligence check needs, we need extensive articles about this subject, not name drops. I would not even mention these in my search results, these are not helpful to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They give out awards [20], and act as a professional association, but there is very little coverage about the association itself. Not meeting notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant, in-depth coverage of the organization itself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage! characters

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

WP:Gamecruft, un-encyclopedic excessively detailed. (Although the move from the game article to a separate page was justified) IgelRM (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, Comics and animation, and Lists. C F A 💬 16:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am confused by the nominators rationale, if they say the split is justified then the article should be kept no? The concer about it being excessively detailed is WP:FIXABLE. Jumpytoo Talk 17:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it fixable though? Can we write an out-of-universe article sourced to third party sourcing? Or will this always be a massive unsourced collection of plot summary? Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage!#Characters, seems to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE with no reception or anything besides pure plot. I'd disagree any split was "justified", this is the type of thing that ought to be pruned and not moved somewhere to easily sweep under the rug. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot to expand from characters page alone. For example, sub characters for each units (that gets deleted from the main page of Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage!). In the Japanese server of the game, in-game's time has advanced to one year. If you actually play the game, you will know that there are a lot to explore from the characters. Of course I myself plan to write it myself, but it will take time and the current main page a bunch of mess.Yukinotane (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Lily (band)

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

Notability is not inherited. The band is already mentioned on the John Foxx page. Sourcing is largely from primary sources. Karst (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vedaant Madhavan

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

Fails WP:BIO & WP:NSPORT. This athlete is not notable yet, did not win any notable championship and fails Wikipedia guidelines for athlete and biography. Drat8sub (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Drat8sub (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hulburd

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as a unelected candidate for congress, who did not receive the requisite WP:SIGCOV outside of his failed campaign. Let'srun (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and Arizona. Let'srun (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judging by the article's use of the present tense, it was clearly written during the campaign (and judging by the non-neutral tone, possibly by someone connected to Hulburd). His campaign wasn't especially notable and he certainly doesn't seem to have gotten much news coverage since. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears promo for the failed campaign. I find nothing about this person since then, so not notable. Lack of coverage and not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and the coverage outside of the subject's campaign does not establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

De'Anyers family

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I don't think any reliable sources cited or available elsewhere provide significant coverage of the article subject, instead providing lots of tangential mentions that do not by themselves confer notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accurrate statement, the sources listed are entirley comprehensive, I ask which ones precisely are 'tangential'.

Notability is sufficent as seen in the extensive sources primary and secondary. Starktoncollosal (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to discuss which sources in particular do not provide significant coverage and see where we go from there, I am aware that there are yes a significant number of sources used which may convey this, however are consolidated by a number of reliable and imparital sources used in this article as well as other articles of a similar nature which cover landed families. Starktoncollosal (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

proposing Keep, I have had a look through the source list comprehensivley and would very much like to discuss this and see if we can reach a consensus.at some point ? several main sources used for the article are all impartial and well known genealogical publications - Burkes, Ormerods, ect. The Battle Abbey Role by the Duchess of Cleveland published I believe in the 1890s covering the families on the scroll, also a book on a biography of the family. Other verified wikipedia pages exist for 3 members of the family listed on the page as well as others not mentioned (artists William Daniell and Thomas Daniell, and Thomas Daniel)

The issue is perhaps the interchangable use of De'Anyers and Daniell between sources however this I have found to be the historical case.. in looking to upload several Van Dyck portraits (Peter Daniell MP) and his sister and aunt I have found them to be listed as De'Anyers however it is the same family.

I am happy to explore and make any edits you may suggest ? (I wondered if perhaps some paragraphs could be slimmed down slightly). However based on pages existing for other identical landed families in Cheshire (several of whom intermarried and are included in the Daniell article) and based on historical significance, and the other reasons mentioned It has its place on wiki, and just needs fleshing out being comparativley newer, which I was activley working on :). Starktoncollosal (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources go into significant prose depth on the family? Keep in mind that genealogies and other directories are not SIGCOV. Coverage of individual members of the family does not count towards notability of the family. Primary sources and passing mentions do not count at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source 6 - A Biography written on the family, and 1 certainly are the first to spring to mind. Can I ask the issue with primary sources coming from an academic writing background in early modern history i thought inclusion of these would bolster an articles notability and conslodiate its relevance ? I understand that for one or two members having pages not warranting a notability claim but surley the case can be made for, as seen in other noble families pages, members consistently throughout an extended time period having influence (as nobility did), - thus warranting notability ? Starktoncollosal (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starktoncollosal Source 6 was written in 1876. Source 1 was written in 1673! While I cannot access the latter, the former is essentially a family tree written out in prose. Significantly better sourcing is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, could you suggest what kind of sources you are looking for ? I thought that the 1876 Biography was well sourced in its own bibliography however I do agree with you, in that case could we possibly reach a consensus that on basis of introducing a more thorough source that the article no longer be marked for deletion and instead voted keep.

look forward to your advise and what sources would be best, Stark Starktoncollosal (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have in my files, x7 portraits of Daniell/De'Anyers mentioned in this article sourced online by Anthony Van Dyck, several by Sir Godfrey Kneller and Robert Walker also.

I see omitted from the article mention of John and Jane Daniell both slightly infamous writers with much information available online - John being from the Cheshire family and in the household of the Robert Devereux, Jane a gentlewoman to Frances Walsingham.. both of whom they later extorted and blackmailed. would be worth a mention.

The article overall has lots of sources in the bibliography and the information seems largely relevant however inclusion of a couple more consolidate ones is advised to bolster this,

However with somewhat consistent historical relevance over the generations since the 14th century in the north west also titleholders in France, it does appear that the family are of significant enough notability to retain and keep the page. Markievcks (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Kannada

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced article. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources on the page to establish significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete I think it not to be deleted. Randomiaedit (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 NRL pre-season results

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

I want to propose that the 2022 NRL pre-season results be redirected to National Rugby League#Pre-season or deleted, in addition to the 2023 NRL pre-season results and 2024 NRL pre-season results articles being renamed to 2023 NRL Pre-season Challenge and 2024 NRL Pre-season Challenge respectively. A collection of independently organised friendlies grouped on to one page is a trivial list and the information is better suited on the "2022 [team] season" pages. As for 2023 and 2024, these were organised by the NRL and the title of those pages should reflect the official name "Pre-season Challenge".

I understand muti page move would have likely been a better format for this discussion, however the template did not seem to function properly. Mn1548 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative could be to merge/redirect to 2022 NRL season#Pre-season, adding details from the background but not the fixtures section. There are only four NRL teams without 2022 season articles, Raiders, Roosters, Tigers, and Warriors, so all the matches apart from 2 (Roosters against Raiders and Tigers) are covered by these articles. EdwardUK (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a more appropriate redirect, thanks. Mn1548 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Disagreeing with the contention to rename the 2023 and 2024 articles. Both include additional information (trials, All Stars etc) that don't quite fit into the NRL's "Pre-season Challenge" nomenclature. I think the article in question here is a reasonable fork from the 2022 NRL season results article, which effectively captures the intention of these pre-season results articles. If anything (and this is especially true in the WP:RL space), these articles just require more prose. Storm machine (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agree with most of this, though it still doesn't cover my main issue with the page - its title. "2022 NRL season results" implies there is some sort of formal organisation by the NRL, which there wasn't until 2023 and the pre-season challenge. Re 2023 and 2024, the non pre-season challenge information is minimal, and can be moved to the pre-season section of the respective NRL season page leaving the pre-season page as purely pre-season challenge information. Mn1548 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Order of the Crown of the Georgian Kingdom

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

This page is a sneaky recreation of Order of the Crown of Georgia which was deleted in this AfD in 2012 and again in 2015. The page was created by User:Yaurigil who has disclosed on their user page that they are paid by "House of Georgia" for their edits.

The article itself notes that the Kingdom of Georgia disintegrated in 1491. So clearly when this "order" was established in 2013 it had no fons honorum and couldn't be created by "royal decree" since the family were not in any kind of power for over 500 years.

None of the sources used for the article are reliable, most are self-published websites which are no longer active.

I tried searching for good sources but failed to find anything compelling. D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Georgia (country). D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed on the deletion though it's a different order from a different House. This one is from the Gruzinsky pretender Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky. Kimon^talk 14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete. Fraudulent (potentially I suppose) use of a long defunct royal title. Wordpress and government websites, and primary sources, are not helpful. This comes up in my searches [21], interviews are not useful. Nothing here showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotion. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: nothing much of substance here. agree with nom & Oaktree b. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 09:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential candidate firsts

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while claims can individually be verified, the set as a whole suffers from the same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. I read through the prior AfD for this page and find the keep rationales expressed there unpersuasive (and essentially identical to the arguments raised in the later discussions I've linked here that were both closed delete) Wikilawyering: I think that the close of the first AfD for this page is particularly incongruous with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts two weeks later, a page with a much stronger claim to meeting LISTN, as sources compiling the firsts of US presidents as a set do exist, but which was closed as no consensus...but perhaps closer to delete than to keep. There is possibly some information in this page that could be merged to related biographies or related lists, although other than perhaps List of United States presidential firsts there is unlikely to be a good candidate for this to redirect to post-merge. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and United States of America. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Not sure how we could delete this one, when it comes to Presidents, we have Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Any information in this list could be added to the pages of the presidential candidate if it is not already there. --Enos733 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NLIST merely states that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Simply pointing out that an article doesn't meet a Wikipedia policy criteria that merely states "one accepted reason" for meeting notability is not itself a valid argument for deleting a page. And this is clearly a notable topic, as demonstrated by the numerous sources on this page as well as recent media coverage such as the The Washington Post which have discussed presidential candidate firsts. Orser67 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources cover this, it has references to prove that. Dream Focus 03:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST. There are plenty of sources for presidential firsts, but candidates? None that I've been able to turn up. The Washington Post article is about the firsts of a single candidate, Kamala Harris, not a group. (It's also very silly to include the candidate for the first election because everything old George did was a first.) Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of these firsts are pretty damn silly, e.g. "First major party nominee to die before the official tallying of electoral votes". Clarityfiend (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that silly? He lost so it didn't ultimately affect the 1872 United States presidential election, but it was an important event in the history of the electoral college: United States Electoral College#Continuity of government and peaceful transitions of power. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per nom, I can see why this article meets some criteria for deletion, but upon reading it, its content seems worth keeping. It was put together well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Orser. NLIST does not give any criteria that this article needs to meet, so that delete reason is invalid. Beyond that, not much from the past AfD has changed which was a clear keep. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very strange reading of LISTN. Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group pretty clearly establishes that we're expected to provide sources that discuss the set of list items as a group (if not necessarily in granular, enumerative detail each time). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but require any addition to be sourced Same as presidential first _pbp 03:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you are referencing WP:NLIST, please explain how the page meets or fails to meet the guideline.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the arguments to keep here have little to no basis in policy. All topics need to be demonstrably notable to have a Wikipedia article, including lists. No such demonstration has been made here, and with the inclusion criteria being as woolly as they are, I don't see any argument that can be made. The historical content is largely okay, but the framing is such that we're setting ourselves up for trivia in the internet age ("first candidate to eat a burrito in a live TV debate") where the antics of any minor candidate would need to be included if even a marginal publication supports them. At the very least this needs reframing: "demographic firsts..." "electoral college firsts..." or something along those lines, though I would not personally like to see such articles either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Town Hall 1873 Centre for the Performing Arts

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

Article about a smalltown performing arts theatre, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for theatres. As always, theatres are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media and books -- but this is referenced entirely to the theatre's own self-published content about itself on its own primary source website, which is not support for notability, and cites absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bearcat is going through articles I have made and deleting all of them after they passed approvals, he is on an abuse of power. Jp3333 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was never submitted to the WP:AFC process, you created it straightaway. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous fictional animals

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

This list is going too far into WP:INDISCRIMINATE and doesn't pass WP:NLIST. (1) Most listed animals don't have stand-alone articles, making their inclusion of "notable" fictional animals quite doubtful. (2) It's "miscellaneous" fictional species, i.e. most listed animals don't have anything in common besides being of an uncommon species, i.e. List of Xs not in list of A, B or C. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This seems very much a technical WP:SPLIT purely based on Wikipedia-internal considerations: We have many Lists of fictional animals, and those whose type does not appear on any of them land here as "miscellaneous". The topic "fictional animals" is clearly notably. So if we want to keep the individual entries of "miscellaneous" animals out of Lists of fictional animals for reasons of readability, this would be a WP:SIZESPLIT and therefore the notability requirement would be fullfilled by the parent topic. Personally, I prefer to merge (the relevant content) completely to Lists of fictional animals.
As for the WP:INDISCRIMINATE criticism, first of all it makes little sense to me that this list here duplicates list-links from Lists of fictional animals. So if kept separately, these should be trimmed. And otherwise defining an inclusion critereon solves this issue, the most simple being to only include notable fictional animals (not listed elsewhere). This may mean a major trim, but there would still be a lot of entries left for this list to make sense as a list of the purpose of navigation. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed the article of entries without stand-alone articles per your suggestion (though I have not removed the links to the other lists). TompaDompa (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I have now removed the list-links as well. TompaDompa (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect if unsourced information doesn't fit in an existing article the answer is to clean it up, not dump it into an article that fails Wikipedia policies. This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE segmentation of a badly referenced list. Jontesta (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not well sourced, so it should not be merged. This topic does not meet LISTN and the entries have barely anything in common. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jontesta and QuicoleJR: By that argument, all lists about fictional animals I've seen should be deleted, because sourcing is very much the same as here. Simply trimming things down to blue-linked entries solves the problem of sourcing, as the information is then present at another Wikipedia article. A list for the purpose of navigation does not strictly need references for that reason. And then, things are longer WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. Daranios (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think "miscellaneous fictional animals" meets LISTN, and the souring was only an argument against a merge, not an argument for deleting. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: I was also concerned about merging, not keeping: Lists of fictional animals also does not have any sourcing, naturally, and does not need it because its purpose is navigation. Ideally it allows anyone to successively browse to any fictional animal featured on Wikipedia. Except if this list here is deleted, it doesn't anymore. Any fictional animal which does not happen to belong to a larger group, where it was decided to have a separate list, would then be excluded from this type of navigation. I believe that would be less-than-ideal, an (albeit small) disservice to the usability of Wikipedia. So what would be the reason not to find a way to make the blue-linked entries here available in this navigation scheme? Daranios (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the examples in WP:INDISCRIMINATE is even remotely applicable here. Deletion votes need to have proper reasoning. — Timwi (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Rampant deletionism at its finest. As already noted, there are lists of fictional animals such as dogs, cats, etc. To just remove all of the animals that happen to be of a species that is rarer in fiction just because you don’t like the term miscellaneous for being “indiscriminate” is just silly. Stop the deletionism, keep Wikipedia complete and useful!! — Timwi (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This was a WP:SPLIT. We should really not dictate that stuff be split out of an article due to size constraints and then twenty years later mosey up and say "uh, why is there this lil lonely article sitting here, better delete it". jp×g 🗯️ 06:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kouroudjel

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm it exists. Refs in other language WP articles didn't lead anywhere. Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find relevant information about the place. Even Google Maps doesn't have it. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND once you figure out the mis-spelling: "Kouroudjel" brings up a town at N16.304° W11.497°. This research article maps the oases around the village. I cannot confirm that 3,700 people live there (2000 census) but it's definitely a place. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A commune of Mauritania and has sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND as there is many good sources given in the page Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland's Forgotten Valour

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

Found nothing for this book. No reviews, only a single passing mention in a newspaper article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Scotland. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any WP:RS talking about the book Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As stated above, there don't seem to be any reviews of this book (checked PW, Kirkus, Booklist, Library Journal); I couldn't find any RSes through Google Scholar either. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Opatovský

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

Opatovský played a total of 861 minutes before disappearing in 2016. I can't find any better article than an interview on SME. Article fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage overall. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Please ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Camera: The Cinematographer's Art

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

I can find nothing on this book beyond passing mentions and a two sentence review-ish paragraph in a monograph of uncertain reliability on archive.org (might be fine, but it's the only thing). It was reissued as The Art of the Cinematographer in 1978 but I can't find anything for that either. Redirect to author Leonard Maltin? PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Film. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the outage I forgot that Newspapers.com existed, and upon searching there are some hits, but I'm unable to tell if any are sigcov or they're just book listings of recent publications. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leonard Maltin#As author: but really not opposed to Keep, as this collection of interviews is quoted in a lot of film books. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airlines Flight 1019

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Kosovo, and Turkey. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only news about the event I could found WP:RS is from Yahoo! which is from 2016 which definitely fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:EVENTCRIT #4. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The East Is Blue

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

This is an article on an essay in a book which itself does not have an article. In all fairness the book itself is notable but no one bothered to write an article on it where I would typically suggest something like this be merged. The essay has a few newspaper articles taking note of it (still mostly in the context of the book, and largely before the book released, but outside of the times piece they mostly read as press release adjacent and are very short. I think the times piece is fine but it's the only thing), and nothing else except passing non-sigcov mentions, not enough for gng. Redirect to Salman Rushdie? Unless someone wants to write an article on the book? I probably would if this was about any other topic. I'm not particularly strong on delete but I feel this is a strange situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Asia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Asia, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction, where the vast majority of his essays don't have articles. fa:شرق_غمگین_است doesn't demonstrate notability either. It's been 20 years since article creation. It's not like WP is losing anything by removing this two-sentence this-essay-exists stub. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/09porn.htm (https://www.news24.com/news24/rushdie-praises-porn-20040808) https://reason.com/2004/08/10/the-salacious-verses/ ; mentioned in https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ed-porn01sep01-story.html, https://wwd.com/feature/exposing-the-exposed-701043-1930810/ ; at the very least redirect to Salman_Rushdie#Essays_and_nonfiction -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Menon

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:FILMMAKER. He's written and sung songs for what appear to be notable films, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. I can't find significant coverage of him in reliable, secondary English or Malayalam sources (അങ്കിത് മേനോൻ). The best coverage of him I could find in a RS was in Malayala Manorama: this interview (primary source) and this article about his music for a film. The rest is passing mentions. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Wikishovel (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, India, and Kerala. Wikishovel (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon M. Sweeney

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

Article appears to be promotional and has been edited extensively by user:Jonmsweeney, user:Jonmsweeney1234 and user:Friedsparrow, all SPA accounts who have also added Sweeney's name to other articles.

Much promo text has been removed since the article was raised at COIN [22], what remains is poorly sourced and it does not seem clear that notability criteria have been met. Axad12 (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & fix article issues (or draftify). Yes, the article has had extensive edits by CoI accounts. However, as noted in the nom, much of the promo text has been addressed. Poorly sourced is not the same as unsourced, and it also is different from "unsourcable". A quick look through JSTOR shows that Sweeney is an often referenced academic in his field, and I think that the subject would be found to be notable with a little bit of effort. Fixing an article's issues is generally preferable to deletion (WP:ATD), and if that can't be done, it should be draftified. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Butlerblog

Hi, yes point taken. Just to clarify on the issue of sources...

When I said "poorly sourced" above I meant that some of the material is entirely unsourced and some of the sources that do exist are either written by Sweeney himself or are to YouTube or are promotional links to where his books can be purchased on Amazon.

With regards to your comment re: "unsourcable", I think it's worth noting that the only person to have contributed to this article to any significant degree is the subject himself. If the subject has been unable to provide sourcing for basic info like his date of birth, place of birth, and details of his family history and educational history, then I think it's reasonable to assume that those details are indeed "unsourcable". Adding [citation needed] to that sort of thing would just be overly optimistic.

So, it seems to me that there are genuine issues on the sourcing here for about 50% of the material in the current article. That being the case, I would support your secondary suggestion of draftify.

I take on board also the comments below re: reviews and WP:NAUTHOR. Axad12 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting myself, in my post above I said "The subject" but I ought to have said "the subject or someone editing on his behalf " Axad12 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and address issues. Sweeney meets WP:NAUTHOR as multiple books have been the subject of reviews in reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there are COI issues it isn't TNT level bad, so there's no use deleting this when he is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domonique Ramirez

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

WP:BLP1E applies here, as there is no coverage present for this subject outside of a brief and non-significant controversy from a minor beauty pageant. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine presidential firsts

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while individual claims can mostly be verified, there don't appear to be any publications dedicated to discussing Philippine presidential firsts as a set, along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Philippines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Congress

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

Fails to meet WP:NORG in meaningful ways. No sign of lasting impact or import beyond the less-than-twenty-sentence Georgia Straight piece and the old radio interview, both from early 2014, I find no real coverage. The only thing I can find from anywhere but the archives of their own website that suggests the group did anything beyond a single cooking demonstration in 2014 was a line in a 2019 blog post about Vegan Congress being an annual event at Emily Carr University. Google and Duck-Duck-Go searches were based on searching for "Vegan Congress" "Emily Carr" to avoid references to an early organization that had Vegan Congress in their name. newspapers.com search from the group's founding date in 2013 to today (for just "vegan congress") found nada. Group's YouTube page delivered 4 videos to its 11 subscribers, all marked as a decade old. Group's web page has been blank for several years now, last non-blank archived version has a single blog post from 2019, and before that, all activity is 2015 or earlier. This is a grou[p that was briefly active, did little of visibility and impact. Nat Gertler (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayans in Germany

AfDs for this article:

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

Tiny diaspora group, a couple thousand in a country of 80 million. Wikipedia is not for every thinkable cross-national immigrant group in the world. I cannot fathom how this passes GNG either. Furthermore, Notability is not inherited by a group by virtue of a couple of notable individuals holding this ethnicity. The fact that Germany accepted some communists is better conveyed by a sentence in Germany–Uruguay relations. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Uruguay. CptViraj (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's That Girl (upcoming film)

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, this film should not have an article yet. This article has been draftified by KingArti twice despite the guidelines at WP:DRAFTIFY, and the draftification has been reverted. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural_impact_of_Madonna#Cultural_depictions: and addd a line there; until filming starts and more is known, maybe. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON would be the wisest choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - It looks like there is consensus that the article should not remain in main space. I think that the previous attempts to send it to draft were made in good faith knowing that filming has not happened, they just didn't follow the guidelines, perhaps unaware of them. That said, I think going to draft space is the best WP:ATD option, mostly because there has now been a slight bit of news that the production might get back on track with some casting. The work that has gone into this article thus far can be built upon in draft space. I think an outright delete would not be the best option because its likely to be further developed in draft space. I do not think a redirect is the best option for the history of this article because the work would likely get buried behind the redirect, and a new draft would be started over, losing the work thus far. Not a problem per WP:PARALLEL per se; just a bit dissapointing to the previous authors. However, I would recommend that a redirect be left behind targeting Cultural_impact_of_Madonna#Cultural_depictions that could be tagged {{R with possibilities}} so that people can find info and at the same time, have a path to develop the draft. (Or target Madonna filmography instead since the mention is already there and wouldn't need to be added.) -2pou (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Tsakalidis

AfDs for this article:

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

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeepa Singh

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Advertising, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her only notable role is in Baalveer, rest are recurring/guest roles. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Her role in Action Replayy is also significant. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Didwana

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

The article violates WP:OR and is seemingly a part of the recent caste glorification drive initiated by some editors. There is no significant coverage for this battle from any academic source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like You are really not checking the citations?
https://archive.org/details/rajput-maratha-relations-1707-1760-ad-vol.-1/page/504/mode/1up

Pg 498-501 has a four page Coverage even with the name of the battle mentioned as Battle of Didwana

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.111093/page/n128/mode/1up

pg 39 has one page Coverage

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_DLQeSBLpUwsC

Has two page Coverage Chauthcollector (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Merta (1754)

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

The article violates WP:OR and is seemingly a part of the recent caste glorification drive initiated by some editors. There is no significant coverage for this battle from any academic source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep did you mind checking the soruces?

https://archive.org/details/rajput-maratha-relations-1707-1760-ad-vol.-1/page/504/mode/1up

Pg 480-482 has a three page Coverage even with the name of the battle mentioned as Battle of Merta

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.111093/page/n128/mode/1up

pg 20-21 has one page Coverage

https://archive.org/details/maratha-rajput-relations-during-the-18th-century/page/105/mode/1up

Pg 80 -82 has a three page Coverage also with the name of the Battle Mentioned Chauthcollector (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kota

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

The article violates WP:OR and is seemingly a part of the recent caste glorification drive initiated by some editors. There is no significant coverage for this battle from any academic source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Kumar (producer)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Bihar, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a lot of news story talking about the guy on Google News Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writesonic

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination: It does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources here are native advertisement with only a few exceptions, which are passing mentions and not in-depth coverage. StrongDeterrence (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maita Sanchez

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NACTRESS or WP:GNG. Nothing that satisfies WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, and Philippines. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mister World countries

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

Insufficient sourcing. The single source here is Pageantopolis, a personal website described by consensus at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources as not suitable for establishing notability. It's been tagged as under-referenced for a decade without any improvement and is unlikely to change. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whatever. Admins always do what they please, so just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcetw (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. If admins did what they please, they wouldn't be admins for long. I'd like to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Belle Montessori School

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

No source on its current state and for most of its history served as a surrogate bulletin board for the school. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I know Google is not good in providing Asian sources, but I can not find reliable sources. What I find are directories, social media and do-it-yourself-websites, not in-depth sources. The Banner talk 08:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Montessori Center

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

No source for most of its history. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education, fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori dei San Lorenzo

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

No source since its creation back in 2011. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education, per nom and it also fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I know Google is not good in providing Asian sources, but I can not find reliable sources. What I find are directories, social media and do-it-yourself-websites, not in-depth sources. The Banner talk 09:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenville School of Montessori

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

Virtually unsourced. One singular source, which appears to be an unrelated opinion poll on Senate elections. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habari

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Per the articles talk page this article has had two substantive nominations for deletion and the main advocate for keeping this article - User:Morydd - is hardly an unbiased source, considering that they're also a member of the Habari project on Github: https://github.com/morydd I find the original nominators arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) to be valid, more so now that the project has been now abandoned for ~10 years. Furthermore, the last afd was more than 15 years ago.

The sources provided are not of sufficient quality to establish notability:

"2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project". All this seems to have amounted to was inclusion in a list of other projects, near as I can tell. That's hardly significant coverage.

Smashing Magazine. Habari got a two sentence mention in that article and altho that's more than Habari got as a result of its inclusion in the 2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project it's not enough to constitute significant coverage.

Matt Mullenweg's blog. Two sentences and that's it.

TerraFrost (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough RSes, seems to be a byproduct of contemporary recentism. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dead project, I could find no sources about it. Badbluebus (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, given that this is the 5th time this article has been brought to AFD, I would like to see more support from experienced editors before deleting as it survived earlier AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz The 3rd and 4th nominations were brought forth by a disruptive editor who did not have any valid reason for deletion, and thus the AfDs were speedily closed. I think, in essence, the article has only survived 1 AfD; the first nomination resulted in a delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Habari was a finalist in the 2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project. Together with the other references, I think that adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See TerraFrost's bullet points. Part of the reason we require SIGCOV is so that we can actually cite and cover the subject. Not all awards are notable, and a community choice awards, especially for Best New Project, even within SourceForge, doesn't seem very notable. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blogs, download sites... that's about all I can find in my searches. Nothing we can use for notability. Sourcing now in the article isn't really helpful either. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Limoki

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

Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Absence of significant coverage. Was only able to find a routine transfer announcement and stats pages with online search. C 679 03:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. C 679 03:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 03:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references added. IdiotSavant (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are: 1. stats profile N. 2, 4, 8, 9: posts by the governing sports body N. 3. Press release in Solomon Star N. 5. Name drop in press release in Solomon Star N. 6. Press release in Fiji Times N. 7. Routine transactional announcement in Fiji Live N. Nothing here is even clearly independent, let alone SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Gujarati

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

Lot's of churnalism and unreliable sources, including a lot of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Previously tagged but still cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE. If anything, recommending a redirect to Viacom18 as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "only Gujarati general entertainment channel in the market", as says a bylined article in the TOI. Also see: https://www.afaqs.com/news/media/55161_viacom18-launches-colors-gujarati-cinema-regional-cluster-revenue-grew-by-22-sudhanshu-vats ; https://www.agencyreporter.com/viacom18-launches-colors-gujarati-cinema-2/ or Books : Regional Language Television in India: Profiles and Perspectives (2021); Indian Silver Screen (2021), for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two links are just regurgitation of announcements that the channel is going to launch. Anyone can put out a press release that gets picked up by the media and re-run in different news outlets. This is not something that would count towards notability. I also do not put much stock in TOI, especially since it looks like it will not be considered towards notability based on current WP:RSN discussion (to be determined of course). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but to Colors TV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirect to Viacom18#Owned_channels is better. RangersRus (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viacom18#Owned_channels. Poor sources on the page to establish significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viacom18: Per RR. Doesn't validate a standalone article for the channel since I couldn't find any sources establishing GNG The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Krautil

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

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources are either not reliable or not providing sufficient support to meet WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think are not reliable?LPascal (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the available sources don't demonstrate GNG here. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is important enough. Also there are more good references available to add to this article. Here is one: "Fiona Krautil produced a discussion pack on ‘What gets in the way of Women’s Advancement?’ for discussion at the Talent Council and the Succession Council, both of which exist to identify and develop high potential people." [23] Rockycape (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is important but needs more improvements with references and details. my opinion is to keep the article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wild & Bare

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Searching throws up articles about the Founder, but trivial coverage about the organisation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikilover3509 (talk) 2:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. CptViraj (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the only salvageable information is related to the founder, since sources related to Wild & Bare are trivial/daily news with no lasting impact. Maybe an article could be created on Jean Alberti and the content here merged and redirected. Recon rabbit 20:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. As it stands, the article reads like a promotional leaflet and as mentioned above, most of the content concerns the "founder", not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Paper Soldier

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

Article on a book that appears to have never come out. Fails WP:NBOOK - it is briefly mentioned in a few articles, but never as the primary subject. Astaire (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Astaire (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a film with this same name... Sourcing from two interviews don't help prove notability. I can't find anything about this book; delete for not meeting notability and a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hugh Laurie. It's already mentioned there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hugh Laurie#Writing. Possible search term for an indefinitively delayed book, article may be resurrected unbureaucratically if the book ever gets published. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hugh Laurie#Writing per above. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senarath Liyana Arachchi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Astrology, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Khais Millen

AfDs for this article:

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

Immediately refunded after soft deletion in 2023 but no change to address concerns in first AfD. Film writer/director who does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:NBIO. Most sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS if they mention him at all; there's an interview that's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and a single example of WP:SIGCOV that exhibits all the hallmarks of unreliable content of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Not enough to pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR AND WP:CREATIVE with at least 3 2 notable films directed and 3 2 written (not mentioning the fact he produced. 2); the said films are notable creations that received independent and in-depth coverage mentioning him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:DIRECTOR are you referring to with "three notable films"? (Only two films he has been involved in even have en-wiki pages and only one of those he directed.) The only criterion I could plausibly see cited is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work," but there's no evidence that any of his works are "significant or well-known." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider his debut film as director notable enough. See coverage about it online. It has no page yet on WP, true. Added 2 links to the article. Writer: my bad, I had counted Lipstick, which is a short. Even if it's only two or even if it it was only one, he would pass both SNGs because these works can be considered significant, as coverage shows. I'll leave it at that as he is a really clear pass imv.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (number of significant films; clarification: 3 or 4 films including 2 directed (Thala; and I count Aakashvani), 2 written (Adithattu and Thala, to which one can add again Aakashvani)); the 1st has received a significant award and is clearly significant imv).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the opening assertion in the nomination: sorry but no change to address concerns in first AfD is an inaccurate statement.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no substantive change. The addition of WP:TRIVIALMENTION citations does not address the concerns in the AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. If those mentions (trivial or not) allow to verify he had an essential role in notable productions they do address the concerns, especially as one mentioned the award for Best Second film that was not mentioned before, unless I am mistaken. I remember checking them (or even adding some) myself back then. I should leave it at that that, as I had said, sorry. Thanks, anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As I noted in the previous AFD, a film he wrote won a second-place regional film award, and for another of his films a child actor won a regional award. Per nomination and subsequent comments by nominator, coverage of the director himself is insufficient per WP:NFILMMAKER. Wikishovel (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect (presumably to Thala (film)) would be acceptable to me as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either to Thala (the apparently better known film) or to Adithattu (the film that won an award) would be fine by me. Wikishovel (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base One (rapper)

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

I found no significant coverage. The only three references in the article are interviews, with two of them being on unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. SL93 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Request

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this is a thing and I don't understand how the second paragraph relates to the topic. Fuddle (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge (the parts that actually relate to the topic) with Request (broadcasting) because having both seems like an unnecessary duplicate. From my brief Google, I have found that an 'all request' does exist All Request Eurovision Party with Richie Anderson: Richie plays two hours of Eurovision party requests. I don't think this needs an entire article for it. Svampesky (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Request (broadcasting). There is nothing to merge at the moment because there is no meaningful content cited to reliable sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time War (Doctor Who)

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

Wikipedia is not the TARDIS data core. This article is a nonsense. It is written as though describing a real conflict. Most, if not all, of the references are primary sources/the actual episodes of the show where this war is mentioned, including the BBC (the show's production company), Big Finish Productions (the production company for the audio adaptation), BBC Books (the publisher for book adaptations), and Doctor Who fan sites. From my research, all sources related to this fictional-war originate either those primary sources, or from standard run-of-the-mill coverage to promote an episode, with only passing mention of the fictional-war, and no analysis of it. ~~Delete!~~ Per Pokelego999's comment, I'm amending to Merge with Doctor Who (mainly the non-primary-sourced material). Svampesky (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Svampesky (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is a bit buried in the depths of promo material, but a brief search yielded some results. Reviews of The Day of the Doctor (The 50th Anniversary special which got a lot more in-depth coverage than most episodes) tend to yield bits (Such as this AV Club source). I found a Gizmodo source discussing the War in its entirety, though its coverage is smattered throughout the article. This book has a whole chapter on the War, while this book seems to discuss it in association with The Doctor's character a fair bit. A brief glance at this book and this book yields promise, as do a few hits for books in regards to Psychology about the Doctor in association with the War, but admittedly these I can't fully access enough to judge. Given the Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, I'd warrant there's probably more discussing its role within the context of the show, but I only did a brief search, so I'd be happy for other editors to also do searches to see what else I didn't see. Either way, the Time War definitely seems to have coverage, if scattered, that shows its notability, though as the nom said the article definitely needs a rewrite at some point in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I've amended my nomination to merge. [T]he Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, yes; but outside of the Doctor Who fictional-universe, I still don't think it passes any of the points of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for it to have a stand-alone article. Svampesky (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's a non sequitur, right? Nothing is notable inside or outside of any fictional universe; they're either notable, or they are not. We don't have to have documentation of time war reenactors in order to keep the article... we just need independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. In point of fact, "real world" manifestations such as toys are often ignored entirely as non-independent (the same people are making money off of them...) when assessing the notability of fictional topics that CAN be so manifested. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. One of the books you cited The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who (ISBN: 9781849909389) is published by BBC Books, which is a subsidiary of the production company of the show. Svampesky (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm unaware of the circumstances with the BBC (Since its publishing is largely unrelated to the original show) so I'm not sure if it has a use case or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although commentary is needed in the article, that can be done with the sources suggested above, even if discounting the BBC book, and therefore notability is established. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either History of the Time Lords#The Time War (sketchy notability itself) or Time Lord (where it is mentioned throughout). I am having difficulty imagining how this article would even look if written with an encyclopedic out-of universe approach (MOS:REALWORLD): Plot doesn't have production design or casting. In short: I believe this topic is unfixable as a standalone article, even with the sources provided above. I wouldn't mind selective merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Time War was a mostly off-screen event, so casting information is irrelevant. Either way, I'd propose an organization of:

-Developmental information (I know it exists as I've seen bits of it floating around before and I'm aware of a few sources I'd need to double check, but I'd need to do a more thorough search than what I've done above)

-Basic summary of the event, which could probably condense the information in the article to a readable state.

-Reception and Analysis of the War's role in the show's narrative.

I'm confused what you mean by the article being entirely unfixable. It needs a massive rewrite, but it's not undoable with more in-depth rewrites and research. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My nomination still stands as 'Merge with Doctor Who', but I am willing to collaborate on a Draft: of this article if the outcome of this AfD is 'Draftify' and explore additional secondary sources with other editors who are interested in contributing. Please, drop a message on my talk page to notify me if this happens. Svampesky (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Time War is literally synonymous with the plot of Doctor Who. It is what the entire series is about. We already have Doctor Who, History of Doctor Who, History of the Time Lords, Time Lord, and Whoniverse to deal with this information. Several of those also have major gaps in sourcing. Do we really need multiple poorly written articles about the same thing? Please let's start with one article with independent reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true; the Time War is a relatively small part of the overall story of Doctor Who. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rule out Doctor Who and History of Doctor Who, as those are primarily out of universe production information. In the case of the Time War, analysis of its role wouldn't be fitting to place in an article like one of those. Whoniverse additionally is more focused on the actual umbrella brand these days. I'm partial to one of the Time Lord articles should it come down to that, but I'd have to take a closer look to see which is better (I'd honestly AfD History of the Time Lords as well- that article is in a very bad state and can easily be condensed to the original Time Lord article) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checking through the article shows there is nothing there to assert WP:SIGCOV. Sources are nothing but mainly of BBC and affliated sources, per WP:PRIMARY. It maybe notable to the Who fanbase but is it notable for Wikipedia. Articles like this needs to be put out of its misery, fans should be reminded that Wikipedia is not Fandom. WP:ATD will be a redirect SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the sources listed above? Given your rationale is mostly focused on the current state, I'm curious about the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Books is WP:PRIMARY. gizmodo is fine, that's one in. As with The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who, I don't know how much is it about the subject to save it from deletion. As with Religion and Doctor Who, I feel there is a small amount is given to the subject. I feel there is not enough to save itself from a merger, which I think is the best outcome. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has been tagged as needing attention, so a good-faith attempt to fix the article should be the first step. If, after removing everything that doesn't meet the required standards, the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, then we can return to the question of deleting or merging it. I don't think we can discuss merging now as the article is far too long for a simple merge. So I come back, again, to - fix the article first. (ETA: forgot to say, WP:TARDIS is an essay, not a guideline; for a convincing deletion argument, I would like to see actual WP guidelines referenced as well, to clearly demonstrate the official standards not met).

JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherCompanion: The notices have been on the page for over two years. As I said above, my nomination remains; but I'm willing to collaborate with editors if this AfD closes as draftify and we restart it from scratch in the Draft: space and work with secondary sources. Svampesky (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Sciences University of Ankara

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

The page was a redirect of a different university so i deleted the redirect and now the page is empty Editor of Universities (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now the page is translated. - Altenmann >talk 02:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The nom means that Social Sciences University of Ankara i.e., tr:Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi is not University of Ankara. - Altenmann >talk 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify: Now it is translated, seems notable, but unreferenced, i.e., needs work. - Altenmann >talk 02:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: I have repaired some malformed syntax in this nomination by reapplying {{subst:afd2}}. I am also not sure if simply blanking the previous redirect (which is, on a technical level, not the same as deletion) to bring this to AfD was entirely correct — redirects are generally handled at RfD, but in looking at the page history this could also be interpreted as an objection to a blank-and-redirect from 2019 (AfDs in that realm normally restore the article content, often concurrently with the nomination, but that was unsourced so I'm hesitant to do so here, even procedurally). (The BLAR was contested at the time too, but with Turkish-language content that does not need to return.) Beyond that I provide no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nothing resembling a WP:DELREASON has been given. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: When it was nominated it was wrong redirect. Now the page is translated from tr-wiki, but unreferennced. - Altenmann >talk 02:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although this article has remained unsourced since its creation, I've restored the version before it redirected to the wrong article and a promotional account added content in the Turkish language. The primary question here should be whether this institution is notable. A quick preliminary search doesn't return much independent and reliable coverage. Might have to dig further to find appropriate sources. Aintabli (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have enough unreferenced AI translated garbage as it is. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep state-established universities, as this one clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshneq I Palestinian Campaign

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

Incoherent page created by a non-extended-confirmed user conflating an Ancient Egyptian campaign in Palestine (region) with modern-day Palestinians, with a map of the Gaza Strip.

If anything, the historical campaign should be discussed at Shoshenq I instead, where a much more accurate summary is already present. There is no current need for a split article, let alone one that violates a CTOP's ECR restriction by conflating it with recent events. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, Israel, and Palestine. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really against redirecting either, yet the article has just been created and not sure if this a great name for a redirect. In other words, this is a delete by points. To also develop the alternative, a redirect would be to Shoshenq I#Chronology. gidonb (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Public School

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced for 11 years. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Notability of schools now much stricter since last AfD. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources other than their own website, which isn't working. No argument to keep in the previous AFD beyond "it has a secondary school", which I can't verify. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I know Google is not good in providing Asian sources, but I can not find reliable sources. What I find are directories, social media and do-it-yourself-websites, not in-depth sources. The prior AfD is irrelevant due to a later RfC. The Banner talk 09:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klover

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

I'm not completely sure that this band is notable. I was able to find a description of the band in Trouser Press, a brief review by Robert Christgau (!), a brief review by Visions [de], and an interview with a bit said about Klover. Edit: Wow, I didn't even notice that two of those are already linked in the article. toweli (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Massachusetts. toweli (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]