This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.


Speedy deletion candidates

edit

Articles

edit

Purge server cache

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

Article has been previously speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A10 as a duplicate article of NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records. The article re-created again by the same creator in the exact same state it was in prior to deletion (including apparently the CSD#A10 tag, which has been in the article since the very first edit). The creator then contested the CSD that they themselves nominated the article for.

At first glance the content of the article appears to be all duplicated, but looking closely there are some very slight differences in the content of the tables. It seems that this list is supposed to be a more general list of all college lacrosse records, while the existing NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records is only for records that occurred under the NCAA - but obviously there is significant overlap.

If the additions do indeed turn out to be notable per WP:NLIST, then the question should be whether we need an article that is almost a duplicate, or if the scope of the existing NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records should be expanded to allow inclusion of the new information. RachelTensions (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the article title currently does not follow WP:AT conventions and the whole lead paragraph is written in an unencyclopedic manner.RachelTensions (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway. It's presently still a CFORK of NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records. College lacrosse is played outside of North America though. A single article for all NCAA records alone would breach WP:Article size, and an article that also included records for college lacrosse in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc. would be even bigger. Keeping the records in separate articles will be just fine, perhaps with a template to link them all. I'm happy to provide and maintain the template. Wikishovel (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article appears to fall outside of Wikipedia's scope, particularly the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The page exists entirely to document the usage of this one Latin word, a goal best covered by Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's policy on the matter, such an entry requires information "beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry" and "information on the social or historical significance of the term." The article attempts to fulfill this requirement by citing quotes from Cicero about rhetoric, but these examples are largely unrelated to the actual word "docere" and are more relevant to the Ciceronian understanding of oration. Such information belongs more in a separate article about rhetoric or Cicero or oration than it does its own stand-alone article. Consider how Wikipedia has an article on Sexuality in ancient Rome but does not have a distinct article for the Latin verb "amare." Even the verb "delectare," despite being mentioned within the same context of Cicero describing the duties of rhetoric, does not have its own article, only a redirect. Graearms (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1894–95 Kent Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual season for local league, fails WP:GNG Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Kent Senior Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual season for non-league county football tournament, fails WP:GNG and no significant coverage Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only evidence found was for the post office; otherwise, a "no there there" spot. Mangoe (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I found brief mentions like this and this. Lacks non-routine, direct, significant coverage. Gheus (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:CORP: non-notable crypto exchange, no coverage outside of WP:TRADES. There is brief coverage about this company in Australian publications. A redirect to parent company is possible. Gheus (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No inline citations, but the links provided are primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article seems to be almost entirely WP:OR about a term so rarely used that it appears to have meant something different every time it was used, with no discernible concept behind it. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 17:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: New Federalism is not a rarely used term, appearing in American history and government textbooks (e.g. "We The People" from McGraw Hill). Should the page be rewritten? Maybe. Deleted? No. Pie GGuy (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then could you please rewrite the article, citing this textbook and other reliable sources if you think the page is worth something? Because otherwise there is no point in keeping it in its current (miserable) shape really. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 10:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Pie GGuy. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wiktionary This is a very poor and rambling essay filled with unfocused detours and things that ended up having absolutely no force (45's executive order is the equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in presidential form and had no true force of law). More appropriate as a dic-def than an article. Nate (chatter) 16:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you: deletion is not cleanup. If the subject is notable but the content is poor, rewrite or stubify. There is no policy basis for "Delete per WP:TNT".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 22:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NCORP: routine M&A news. Redirect to The Access Group is also possible. Gheus (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions, profiles, about us pages and other misc/non-specific coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 11:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is WP:SICOV? Ruccc (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruccc, Scoop creep mean WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Ruccc (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 birthday.se Appears to be a file of birthdays of people. This establishes that he exists. Yes No Probably not. Probably user-provided. ?
2 www.dn.se/kultur-noje/ An interview No. Yes Yes No
3 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagens_industri This is probably an improperly entered reference, but it links to a Wikipedia article. So it is either incorrectly formed or circular ? Not about the subject No. ?
4 news.cision.com Announcement that he has left a company. Probably not. Reads like a press release. Yes Probably No
5 www.dagensmedia.se Another announcement that he has left the company. Probably not. Reads like a press release. Yes Probably No
6 www.di.se/nyheter A press release about a job change No. Yes. Probably No
7 www.realtid.se A list of attendees at Davos Yes No, passing mention. Probably Yes
8 www.opensocietyfoundations.org A profile as one of the directors of the foundation No. Yes Probably No
9 web.archive.org/web An account of the founding of the Höj Rösten Foundation Yes No, passing mention. Probably No
10 www.dn.se A press release that "Sachs wants to scrutinize capitalism" No. Yes Probably No
11 www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum A Forbes contributor piece No. No, passing mention of subject. No. No
12 www.apolitical.foundation Profiles of board members No. Yes No. No
13 www.resume.se Another press release No. Yes No. No
This source assessment table is based on this version of the article: [6]. References were added to the article while I was assessing the sources, and I revised the table. The addition of more sources was not material.
As noted above, there is an extensive history, which includes previous versions of articles on the subject, as well as redirects, and an article about a fictional person. This article should be cut down to a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon: I'm sorry, but I don't think this reflects the reality of some of the sources in the article. Comments below.
1. Agreed.
2. Mostly an interview, but also covers other material, which I'd argue is secondary. Described above.
3. No, the wiki link follows the norm for how we cover press material, same as other sources in the article – the name of the publication is linked. Not the name of the article, which is an offline source (or accessible though sv:Mediearkivet). Not all sources are online sources. This is nine pages in Dagens Industri, mostly but not only interview material. Described above. Can be checked by pretty much anyone with a Swedish university account (or access to Mediearkivet, provided to some editors by Wikimedia Sweden). As noted above, I've not been able to locate the online equivalent.
4. Agreed.
5. Disagree. Unlikely this is merely a press release, for four reasons: a) Unlike Cision, Dagens Media does produce journalism, which merits that we take a closer look; b) it's the same day as the press release in 4., but with different content, noting things which were not present in that press release c) it's signed (Eva Wisten), d) it contains material unlikely to have been in a press relase, such as noting that he'll "be on paternal leave and think". This reads like a reaction to the press release in 4., but someone actually having written an article based on other sources.
6. Definitely not. This is an article, takes up most of a page in the leading Swedish financial newspaper, and doesn't read at all like a press release to me. Why do you think it would be one?
7. Agreed.
8. Agreed.
9. Agreed.
10. Uncertain. Not terribly interesting as a source anyway.
11. Agreed.
12. Agreed.
13. Agreed.
14. (In the current version.) Missing. Added before this was posted, but after the assessment, I suppose.
Could you please explain your reasoning around 2, 3, 5 and 6? /Julle (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On ref 2 it does say the Pallas met him for conversation. I can't read it fully as paywalled, but it does look an interview. scope_creepTalk 06:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "Much of this is interview material, but not all of it", I wrote above, and then "Mostly an interview, but also covers other material, which I'd argue is secondary" in the comment to the source assessment above. (: /Julle (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other material is likely provided by the PR agency. It put the reference in the context of a interview and can't be used to prove notability. It not a valid. scope_creepTalk 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Ref 5 it reads a profile generated from a press-release. That fact that its bylined doesnt add much to it. It reads like a 300 word profile and is not in-depth. scope_creepTalk 06:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have a press release from exactly the same day (4.), that would mean that they'd sent out two different press releases on the same topic, with different information (since much of the background in 5. is missing in 4.). To me, that seems much more unlikely than a journalist taking a look at the press release in 4. and writing something based on other sources than the press release (since it contains information not in the press release in 4).
(It's still not a longer piece, no.) /Julle (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks and reads like conjecture, is not indepth and is not valid. scope_creepTalk 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Ref 3. The reference format is fine. This is a financial paper similar to Bloomberg and the Financial Times. Its is likely paid PR. scope_creepTalk 06:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intimately familiar with Bloomberg and the Financial Times, but this is the main article in this issue of the newspaper. I find it extremely unlikely that this would be paid PR, that's not how Dagens Industri works and they'd completely resign their position as the dominating financial newspaper in Sweden if they presented paid material as journalism. Why would we assume it's paid PR? /Julle (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is mechanism used to market themselves. Billionaires and millionaire are extraordinary secretive, they don't like their business dealing and their private lifes being made pubic, generally speaking. They build a public facade, their brand in the modern era using PR agencies so they are always shown in a good light. That is known thing. Lastly, its not necessarily paid material as journalism. You need to read up on it. All papers take the marketing dollar, more so since the coming of social media when it the industry was absolutely eviscerated, more or less right across the world from about 2007-2008. Its recovered now because many of them are behind paywalls and legislation that has come in to protect the industry but for many years, journalism as a practice was hit very badly. So the boundary between real journalism and all this other "crap" that came in was blurred and they used that money to effectively save their industry. Real journalism is making a return but for certain things like this, you don't know if its paid for. You really have to look, particularly for this type of source. So it could be potentially be a good reference right enough, but its hard to verify and I'm not confident considering the subject matter, that its not been paid for. scope_creepTalk 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you are proposing redirect, please specify a target. At different times in its history, this page was a redirect to two different targets, neither of which currently mentions the person.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 22:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NCORP: short-live non-notable businesss, routine one or two news articles after liquidation. Gheus (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK unsourced and my before turned up nothing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On ProQuest, on the first page, there are reviews from:
  • The Record (NJ newspaper)
  • The Age (Australian newspaper)
  • The News Press (Florida paper)
  • The Booklist
  • The Guardian
  • Kirkus
  • Boston Globe
  • 3+ other papers
And this is without searching any other site, or going past the first page of results, probably a ton more PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I neglected to check proquest but how in-depth are those? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Resnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article is not notable whatsoever, coverage doesn't even seem routine. Subject does not fulfill WP:GNG or WP:NPOL at all. Additionally, the article was marked for deletion per a previous AfD, but was recreated at some point. Seems cut and dry what should be done here. -- Talthiel (talk)

Additionally, I am nominating the following artcles for deletion for many of the same reasons, primarily failing WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.

Mike Verveer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Savion Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tony Zielinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marina Dimitrijevic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources in the article are not great in establishing notability and BEFORE does not prove otherwise. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article, so my voice doesn't count here, but since I was mentioned in the comments, I would like to share my thoughts. Firstly, Antsiferov is mentioned in several articles (for example, in relation to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him), both of which are quite high-profile and have been covered by many reputable media outlets. Secondly, he is the author of well-known textbooks in Russia, which are used by students at elite Russian universities (MGIMO, MSU). Madrugador88 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madrugador88 Oh your voice does count please, that's not how it works. The relationship to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him did not provide sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order for the textbooks to help towards Wikipedia:AUTHOR, they would need to be the subject of multiple independently published book reviews. For them to lead us to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we'd need to see that they are being used by a large number of colleges and universities, with evidence for that (for example, if the publisher has put up a list of textbook adoptions). Qflib (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unfolded Keep here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unreliable sources, and nearly all of the individuals on this list are not notable. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominated for deletion as a WP:Before search yielded zero results from reliable sources. The search returned multiple wiki pages and videos from the content creator listed in the article. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG, and frankly seems like some internet joke rather than a serious topic warranting inclusion. Thanks. Wibbit23 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of WP:N. A WP:BEFORE search only returns lists of his articles, and a few critiques by some rabidly pro-Israel website that doesn't seem reliable. BilletsMauves€500 09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear the nominator's opinion on these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

it lacks sufficient independent, secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, the article relies heavily on promotional language and primary sources, which compromises its neutrality and fails to provide verifiable third-party coverage. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This nom seems like a stretch and over reach to me. There are plenty of in-depth resources from independent 3rd party sources just by clicking the news or books tab on google. They are published several times a week. The nominator has several warning and a controversial editing history. Just seems like there are better things to spend time on. SmileyShogun (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin: SmileyShogun (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. The Grid (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My company uses NinjaOne for our RMM services, and I needed to do research on it to become more familiar, and this Wikipedia article has a plethora of good reference articles and resources. There is no need to delete the article, and would be a loss of information for others like me. Jonkorf (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Jonkorf (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors about this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cant't see any claim to notability; the band for which he sang is (imo) non-notable & up for deletion, otherwise I would redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving an editor a little more time to find better sources. Otherwise, it's probably a deletion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

She is only discussed by reliable, independent sources in the context of the Mute R. Kelly movement, which she founded. Even the awards she won are all in relation to this movement. The only source I could find that was not related to the R Kelly stuff was this puff piece, which was published at the same time that she had gotten a PR company to publish this other puff piece that looks the same. In fact, most sources that talk about her art career are either not independent or look like very routine annoucements. We would do better by leaving this as a redirect to Mute R. Kelly. Badbluebus (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show those sources? Badbluebus (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interview, it's not independent from the subject, most of it is Odeleye talking about herself. Badbluebus (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mute R. Kelly as AFD. There's no cognizable claim to notability in the article aside from her connection with this movement. I couldn't find additional materials, and I agree that the interview article identified by NHCLS should be disregarded for the purpose of establishing notability. If she has more accomplishments in future the history will be there to resurrect this as a full article. Oblivy (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She meets WP:BASIC with plenty of WP:SIGCOV, such as #1, #2, #3, that show her WP:N is not only about the Mute R. Kelly movement, as per the nom claimed. She is not a case of WP:1E, even let's say she is, the GL also affirmed a single article per: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Nihonjinatny (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Divided between Keep and Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are event listings. scope_creepTalk 16:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previously at a deletion discussion (WP:RFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This list is almost exclusively sourced to official Longhorns Baseball materials, principally its 2023 fact book There is no evidence that independent, secondary sources discuss Texas Longhorns baseball statistical leaders as a defined group; as a result, this subject fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Heavily promotional resume-like article with no established and WP:SUSTAINED notability with WP:RSes Amigao (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, how different was the original article which was deleted in 2017 to the one that is up for AFD now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cue Club 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. MouseNJoypad doesn't seem like a reliable source. Suggesting a redirect to Cue Club#Cue Club 2 as an alternative to deletion. I would have redirected without an AfD but there was someone who removed the notability tag. Mika1h (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see the page retained. MouseNJoypad wrote a genuine, independent review of the game shortly after release, even though it is one of the smaller gaming sites. Cue Club 2 is also a regularly updated product, and relevant as PC cue sports simulation. Zanari (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A single review is generally considered insufficient to pass WP:GNG by even the most lax metric. While single sources can sometimes justify pages, the general consensus for something as small as a review is that at least 3 from clearly reliable sources are needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 11:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, here we are again already, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layover was closed as a soft delete just a few days ago. This was undeleted to be draftified, which is fine, but then it was restored to mainspace without actually being improved. Some alleged new sources were added, but the actual content was not improved at all, so this still has the exact same issues and is just a repost of the same article with some potential sources that clearly have no actually been used at all, tacked on to the bottom. I'm not seeing what the rush was to get this WP:DICDEF article back into mainspace. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable and no SIGCOV. Looks like promotion only PPOP101 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Skynxnex (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The subject of the article is a member of the Parliament of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada) and would be notable under WP:NPOL. Like with the recently-nominated Vyacheslav Kutovyi, this article was written today (October 7). I agree with the original AfD nominator that this article needs work, especially more sources and a keen eye to check for POV language and puffery, but the source provided right now, from investigative journalist Denys Bigus, makes me think that there is additional information that can be found for this article. Bkissin (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vyacheslav Kutovyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like promotion of the not important person; doesn’t meet WPBIO and SIGCOV. Not notable PPOP101 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page originally created as Chip Merlin and deleted pursuant to this discussion back in May. Article recreated by another user as an alternative name William Merlin . Still fails notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too thought the notability was marginal when I was accepting the draft. I was no opinions either way. Ca talk to me! 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have recently undertaken a project to make sure that we have articles on the top 250 largest law firms in the United States, of which we currently have about 200. On the basis of that investigation, I can definitively say that this firm is not even in the top thousand. The firm founded by this individual is not encyclopedically notable, and the individual is somewhat less so. BD2412 T 22:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three Men and a Baby (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Rosemary's Baby discussion as a franchise here, I can not find much to apply WP:SIGCOV which addresses the topic of this series in detail (see WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic directly and in detail") as well as MOS:FILMSERIES which suggests "an article would also benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole, or at least commentators who compare later films to their predecessors".

While there has been a lot of effort and work to put this together sources within the article are either about individual topics (Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic, the Numbers, etc.). Of the few that discuss the films with a bit more depth, they primarily discuss the first film, with no oversight or commentary on it as a series outside a mention of a sequel.

On my own research to try to expand the article, it was similarly limited to usually a single sentence with no signifigant coverage. Overviews just state the first film received sequels and remakes, with no commentary on the topic. This is seen in articles like Empire here or Yahoo! Life here While I looked through pages of google books to find information on it as a franchise or series, it had similar results (either in relation to the careers of Nimoy, in context of Hollywood remaking American films here (University of California Press), or the first film for various historical reasons (place in 80s cinema, etc.) here (Rutgers University Press), here), and again, even these were very brief mentions of even just the first film. Placing the films name into searches into the Wikipedia Library or Google Scholar predominantly have articles about Hollywood Remaking the first film as a franchise here, or others going into detail on the how the first film treats masculinity in film, and other gender studies topics.

Content within the article and on my own predominantly discusses the first film either in the context of popular hollywood films of the 1980s, the career of the actors and director Leonard Nimoy (with only brief mentions to the series),

    • Den of Geek here, while it seems less like a news blurb and a proper retrospective, is mostly comparing the French-language film that inspired it, and the original hit film. There isn't any information/content/reception about the follow-ups or the film as a franchise/series.
  • Other sources that go more into detail such as Eighties Kids appears to not pass WP:REPUTABLE ("a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), it appears to be an extension of a popular Facebook nostalgia page.

The article in its current state might even fail MOS:FILMSERIES which states "A film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films [...] Exceptions may include franchise articles where films are one of several notable and interrelated components (TV series, comics, etc.)." The "Baby Daddy" series does not appear to be related to the films in any coroporate way with the article only stating it was "inspired" by it. The article on the series itself makes no mention of its relation to the films or series. On trying to find a connection myself, I only found the LA Times calling the series derivative of the film, not connected (LA Times: here. The State Journal-Reigster here) Seemingly not different than lets say My Baby's Daddy, which also seems unrelated. here. (Daily Collegian). Or from the article itself withBitch Media which goes into detail comparing to the two works, but makes no suggestion on any canonical or business acumen that they are realted in-universe or through ownership of the brand.

The rest of the article generally rehashes the history of the plots of individual works with critical citations going only towards the film themselves MOS:FILMSERIES suggests above. Without comparisons. This may fall under WP:UNDUE as we have a lack of "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."

Please note, that voting keep or delete on this is not in relation to whether a series exists or not, its whether there is enough discussion from the sources in question to currently make this an article that follows our guidelines. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC. The New York Times source, a book review, is the only secondary and independent source and it doesn't quite show notability for the book – and not at all for its author. bonadea contributions talk 17:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing to indicate that WP:NPROF is met, nor WP:BASIC. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. Was draftified for a chance to develop it, but instead it was moved back to mainspace with no changes. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The article is a direct translation of Sundberg 2010's entry for this war, with some selection of content (some sentences/paragraphs are not included). See the article talk page for side-by-side comparisons. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Session drummer where sourced pointing to notability have not been available since 2010. Karst (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article shows zero evidence of notability. Sayful Ialam (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain that why it shows zero evidence of notability please. We also needs reasons for deletion discussion (although my feedback is mutual). Mehedi Abedin 16:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aricca Vitanza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as there are insufficient reliable sources to establish its significance. Additionally, the content appears promotional. I propose deletion based on WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) and WP:NOTPROMOTION.

This person is not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page. The historical background of this person is mostly heresay, there does not exist any sources to verify the claims. Whatever links there are are broken or dead.

This is a flagrant self-promotional page. It does not attain the standards wikipedia holds in order to merit an article. 47.153.182.90 (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged as uncited almost a year ago. I could not find enough good sources to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

As we now have Manga+ (also uncited) do we still need this? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why would you want to delete the full album of a well-known, chart topper band? If you have issues reagrding sources, put the respective template on the article. just because this isn't an American band, doesn't mean the album isn't notable. Go read about maNga. Xia talk to me 16:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added sources. It's a gold disc album that also won a top music award for the band. Xia talk to me 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leo Braudy (art dealer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are all connected to the subject or are not significant coverage – fails GNG. The previous AFD mentioned some offline sources, but they are not accessible for verification and the descriptions of these do not seem substantive (e.g. among brief quotes from art dealers, not biographical coverage). He is now appearing on a reality show but this would not be a basis for notability (though this could be redirected there should an article for the season be created). Reywas92Talk 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. AmericanY (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Hardly meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This person does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Her master's thesis garnered a major burst of one-off media coverage, but that does not satisfy notability requirements per WP:BLP1E. WhinyTheYoungerTalk 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Nothing about this person since the 2011 paper. I don't see sustained coverage and does not meet academic notability. Carpet refbombing is a thing now, Sources 3-41 are to show it's received international coverage, which is a bit excessive. I think this was a attempt at promotion, that didn't really gain traction. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 7 October 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.
Skew It on the Bar-B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing I can find about this song shows that it passes WP:NSONGS. No chart positions, no certifications, only one reliable source that gives it equal weight as part of a list of multiple songs, a WP:BEFORE search could only provide me with unreliable and self-published databases/fansites. No evidence of notability to pass WP:NSONGS -- redirect to Aquemini. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No indication of notability. 2 references in the article. One is a database listing (MusicBrainz). The other seems to be a fan-written analysis. See page 76: [20]. Written by someone called "BloodBoal", with some text from website movingmagemusic.com and the album booklet (primary source). Mika1h (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Luge because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this female athlete to meet WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is also an unsourced stub. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 13:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Again fails WP:GNG and all references fail verification. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not meeting notability criteria WP:NFF. - The9Man Talk 09:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 13:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found to meet WP:GNG, and there are no multiple nationally known critical reviews to meet WP:NFILM. The article cites unreliable sources, such as YouTube and BookMyShow. GrabUp - Talk 12:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails NEVENT. no WP:INDEPTH coverage. and IMO its, WP:TOOSOOON and WP:THEREISNORUSH — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Very rarely out of the many cases does terrorism in Pakistan get long term coverage so do what we have done with the rest and merge PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I Believe the high quality sources cited, and the in-depth information featured in those articles absolutely meet the requirements for inclusion (hence the reason I went ahead and created this article). There is in-depth and significant coverage. Also: You can see just by searching "2024 Karachi Bombing" on Google. You can see that there are still significant sources covering and updating the event a day later (even ABC[1] and CNN, and BBC, AP, etc) it would only make sense to create a Wikipedia article so that people have the facts from various sources in one place. The event is notable, it was a terrorist attack on an airport the same airport that suffered an attack 10 years prior.
You initially moved this article from the Main-space into a draft, because "more sources needed", as you said both on the revision, and on my Talk Page, and I believe the sources I linked more than suffice, (respectfully). Gonzafer001 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are attacks that have killed 10+ or 20+ people in Pakistan that did not receive lasting coverage - in fact, most of them. Pakistan has so much terrorism that any one attack receiving lasting coverage is incredibly slim, especially one this low profile. They all blow up in the news, are mentioned for two days, then never covered again. Event notability is maintained by LASTING coverage, not just coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • REPLY - I see where you are coming from, but this incident - involving an already designated and known Terrorist group Balochistan Liberation Army where they carried out an attack on Chinese investors and engineers is definitely something worth inclusion, Wikipedia is not about whether its editors support or not-support an article, it whether it's a good fit for the main-space. - Two people died in this attack which had targeted a "high-level target", even the The Chinese Embassy confirmed that the "high level convoy" included staff members from the Port Qasim Electric Power Company, a coal-powered plant developed through a joint venture between China and Pakistan.[2]
The Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs even labeled this Bombing as a "Heinous Terrorist Attack"
- Heinous "hatefully or shockingly evil : abominable. heinously adverb. heinousness noun."
The Balochistan Liberation Army terror group has 3000 fighters, they themselves have a Wikipedia page.
Though two people were killed, and 10 were injured-- There is zero question that this incident is notable, it falls under the realm of WP:SIGCOV as I have attached reliable sources of which covered the story in-depth WP:DEPTH and from a neutral point-of-view--I even went ahead and attached News outlets from WP:DIVERSE regions such as Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Fox News, etc, all International sources outside the WP:GEOSCOPE. All of which are reliable enough to be included on Wikipedia themselves.-- Also for WP:SIGCOV: This article does not assume, it has only listed the facts that are known, including the fact that the separatist group claimed responsibility and that their target was a high value person. This event also shows proof of WP:PERSISTENCE, obviously news stories won't run forever but this specific event has been getting continuous coverage since the story broke-- News outlets are even doing more than one article on the event.
We have had 24 hours, the dust had settled already WP:DELAY is un-needed, hence the reason I had added WP:BREAKING to the header--We have enough info for a stub, and obviously enough news has come out in the past 24-hours to add even more information to the article.
But I do understand where you are coming from and I RESPECT it, but we should definitely keep this on the mainspace -- or at-least consider WP:RAPID Gonzafer001 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzafer001 Many of the previous attacks have gotten far more attention than this, also involving the same factors you mentioned, and almost all failed to sustain lasting coverage. Any breaking event is going to have sigcov when it happens. Attacks that have killed 20 people and have involved established terror groups often aren't notable because they don't get long term coverage! Pakistan specifically, their media rarely covers the specific individual incidents for long. In other countries it would make sense (though making breaking news articles it is a generally bad idea) but the pattern with Pakistan is overwhelmingly 99% of attacks there do not have lasting coverage due to the frequency, similarity, their security situation and their media ecosystem. They do not get the retrospective type articles that help notability in other cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Galma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, does not demonstrate notability, and contains only minimal content (two or three lines). AstuteFlicker (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.M.A.M. Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. Delete or merge with NITTE as per the existing affiliation. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Never accepted, and the two taxa it would have contained are junior synonyms. Not even worth merging anywhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable enough to warrant its own article. References are primary or just mentions. - The9Man Talk 08:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

because it likely does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. The bank's operations ceased in 1964 when it merged with the State Bank of Travancore, and there is limited independent, reliable source coverage detailing its historical significance beyond basic mentions. Without substantial secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the bank’s role or lasting impact Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

We already have Rather as a disambiguation for people with this surname. The topic of the surname in Kashmir specifically is not notable. Fram (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are already included there. Fram (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yosuke Nakagawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Weak claim to notability with 14 games in Singapore and nothing else above amateur level, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was created in a time when playing for any national team was considered notable. It's not anymore, and the amount of significant coverage I could find about this player was zero. Match reports from Bonaire do not contribute to notability, neither does "captaining a team in an Après-Ski Tournament". Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article seems to be based primarily on original research, and the sources are genealogical papers and personal documents obtained by the article author (e.g. this source) that ultimately don't prove the existence of an independent Báthory family. They instead attempt to link the well-known Báthory to the Aba clan. As a conseuqence, the article is in parts written like an essay and by and large lacks reliable and secondary sources for key points in proving the existence of this family. One of the more crucial sources mentioned in the article, a book by Tibor Báthory-Szőny, is an apparent attempt by the author (a designer, according to everybodywiki, but not mentioned anywhere else) to personally link his own family to the Aba clan, which does this article no favors, as it certainly doesn't constitute a reliable source.
In addition to that, the article has already been discussed and deleted on huwiki (where one sysop felt confident enough calling it a "hoax", later looking through a physical copy of a source cited by the author and finding nothing on the topic) as well as on several more wikis, where it was variously deleted as a duplicate or a machine translation. Hijérovīt | þč 19:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an important addition for those who'd like to contribute to the AfD: the author has left some comments on the nomination on their own talk page instead of the article's. Hijérovīt | þč 19:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject of the article is not hoax, there really was a Báthory (or Bátori) de Gagy family (from clan Aba), but it was not related to the well-known Báthory family (from clan Gutkeled). See this source [22]. However, I am not sure that the conclusions of the article are correct. According to Pál Engel's genealogical work, Miklós Sirokai came from another branch of the Aba clan. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can't speak on the factual existence of the family itself, but the article seems like more of an essay aimed at proving genealogical ties with questionable sourcing instead of a fact-of-the-matter article that paraphrases reliable sources. I believe it would at the very least have to be rewritten from the ground up to reflect firmly established knowledge on the lineage, which makes it as good as deleted. Hijérovīt | þč 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://hu.wikibooks.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:Szal%C3%A1nczy_csal%C3%A1dfa_1678.jpg Here is a photo of the genealogical table of the Báthory family, beginning with Count Péter of Aba and his son Miklós, the ancestor of the Báthory of Gágy line. This original artwork is dated 1678 and serves as a valuable historical document, illustrating the family's lineage and heritage. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Szal%C3%A1nczy_csal%C3%A1dfa.jpg Attached is a large-scale picture of the genealogical table, which allows for magnification for better visibility. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong. However, I would like to present further evidence and academic references that underscore the separate identities and historical significance of these two families.
Distinction Between the two Báthory Families
1. Báthory Family from the Gutkeled Clan:
- This lineage traces its origins to two Swabian brothers, Gut and Kelad, who migrated to Hungary from the Stof castle, which is associated with either Staufen im Breisgau or Hohenstaufen in Württemberg.
- The Gutkeled Báthory family is traditionally divided into three branches: Somlyó, Ecsed, and Szaniszlófi. Each of these branches contributed to the political and social landscape of Hungary over the centuries, with significant figures such as Báthory István (Stephen Báthory), who served as the Prince of Transylvania and was elected King of Poland.
2. Báthory of Gagy Family from the Aba Clan:
- The second major Báthory lineage is linked to the Aba clan, descending from King Samuel Aba. This family also produced notable figures, including Miklós Báthory of Gágy (known also as Miklós of Siroka or Miklós Gereven) who was a vojvode of Transylvania from 1342-1344. [a. Herzoge. | Siebmacher: Wappenbuch | Reference Library (arcanum.com)] - The distinct genealogical [Archaeogenetic analysis revealed East Eurasian paternal origin to the Aba royal family of Hungary | bioRxiv] and historical narratives of the Aba Báthory family further illustrate their separate identity from the Gutkeled Báthory family.
Supporting Academic Sources
I would like to emphasize that the article under deletion also includes multiple academic sources and archive materials that provide evidence for the distinction between these families. Some of these sources include:
1. Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Volume 45, pages 115-120. This academic article explores the Hungarian noble lineages, including the Báthory family of Gágy, and their role in the political history of the region.
2. - [Báthori család. (Gágyi). | Nagy Iván: Magyarország családai | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)] this is from this book: Magyarország családai czimerekkel és nemzékrendi táblákkal – Wikipédia (wikipedia.org) I would like to point out that one of the most authoritative sources on Hungarian noble families is Nagy Iván's "Magyarország családai címerekkel" ("The Families of Hungary with Coats of Arms"). This book is widely recognized as the most accurate and comprehensive reference for Hungarian genealogies. The depth of research and the historical accuracy in this work make it an essential source for understanding the distinctions between the noble families, including the Báthory families of different origins. I recommend consulting this work for reliable information on the history of Hungarian nobility.
3. -[Báthory-Szőnyi Tibor: Noblesse oblige, Báthory-Szőnyi Tibor | Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Központi Könyvtár (MNMKK) (hnm.hu) ]
[23]https://catalog.library.hnm.hu/en/record/-/record/MNMKVT351217 The book Noblesse Oblige, which is included in the collections of both the Hungarian National Museum and the British Library, provides detailed information on the Báthory of Gágy family. The author of the book is a direct descendant of the family, which adds a unique perspective and depth of knowledge to the historical account. This work is a valuable resource for understanding the lineage and distinct identity of the Báthory of Gágy, offering well-researched insights that support the differentiation between the Báthory families.
4. -[Sirokai család. (Sirokai †) | Nagy Iván: Magyarország családai | Reference Library (arcanum.com)][24]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Nagyivan-nagy-ivan-magyarorszag-csaladai-1/tizedik-kotet-9475/sirokai-csalad-sirokai-9C84/ The genealogical table clearly shows that Miklós Báthory of Gágy is a descendant of Count Péter of Aba, lord of Szalánc. This lineage highlights the direct connection between the Báthory of Gágy family and the Aba clan, further supporting the distinct identity of this family in Hungarian noble history.
5. -[GAGYI LÁSZLÓ SÍRKÖVE. | Turul 1883-1950 | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)][25]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Turul-turul-1883-1950-1/1887-33C5/1887-3-3795/magyar-sirkovek-385B/gagyi-laszlo-sirkove-385C/ This article states that László, who was killed by the Turks, had a brother named Miklós, who served as the Voivode of Transylvania. Miklós's tombstone is one of the oldest known, and it features the ancient coat of arms of the Aba clan, providing important evidence of the family's lineage and noble heritage.
6. -[Siebmacher's grosses und allgemeines Wappenbuch 1856-1961 | Arcanum Újságok] [26]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Siebmacher-siebmacher-wappenbuch-1/der-adel-von-ungarn-magyarorszag-2/csaladok-29/bathori-ii-v-gagy-880/ This article presents the great seal of the Báthory of Gágy family and explicitly states that they are descendants of the Aba clan. The seal serves as further historical evidence supporting the family's origins and distinct lineage
7. -[Báthori II. v. Gágy. | Siebmacher: Wappenbuch | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)] [27]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Siebmacher-siebmacher-wappenbuch-1/der-adel-von-siebenburgen-erdely-AC44/edelleute-niederer-adel-BA76/bathory-i-v-gagy-BCFE/ The same as above, but the small seal.
8. -[Báthory I., v. Gagy. | Siebmacher: Wappenbuch | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)][28]https://adt.arcanum.com/hu/collection/SiebmacherWappenbuch/ This is one of the most well-known books on European heraldry, providing a detailed description and illustrations of the symbols of the Báthory of Gágy family. The book offers important insight into their heraldic heritage, further emphasizing the family's distinct identity
It is essential to recognize that until the two families are adequately distinguished in separate articles, any encyclopedic information regarding their contributions and historical contexts risks being conflated, potentially leading to misinformation. This is particularly evident in related articles, such as the one on Aba (gens), which inaccurately attributes aspects of the Aba Báthory family to the Gutkeled Báthory family.
I respectfully urge the administrators and editors involved in the deletion decision to review the sources and context provided. A comprehensive understanding of Hungarian history, particularly regarding noble lineages, is vital for maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the information presented on Wikipedia.
The attached sources are highly respected and academically credible, and they clearly support the distinctions outlined in this article. I encourage all editors to carefully review these references, as they provide well-researched evidence that is crucial for an accurate understanding of the Báthory families Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, none of the votes dispute the relevant book entries, eg Siebmacher Wappenbuch entries. Their votes seem solely rely on older version and hence are not properly motivated. Axisstroke (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for your support and for recognizing the absurdity of others ignoring the academic sources provided! Kenessey Aurél (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This decision appeared to stem from a lack of historical knowledge on the subject, which led to misunderstandings and personal biases impacting the discussion. It is very challenging to engage in productive dialogue with individuals who lack knowledge about the history involved. It is essential to approach historical topics with thorough research and an open mind to ensure accurate representation. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A perfect example of pure WP:OR. This would do better in a genealogical journal or forum, but WP is not the place for the author's original research and essay-like articles. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Friend, The deletion of this article risks leaving significant inaccuracies about the Báthory families in the encyclopedia. There are two distinct Báthory lineages that are often mistakenly treated as one. This misunderstanding persists among the readers, which makes it crucial for Wikipedia to provide clear, well-differentiated information.
    The claim that this article is based on original research overlooks the fact that numerous credible academic and historical sources were used, including documents from respected archives and authoritative genealogical works! These references clearly indicate the separate identities and histories of the two Báthory families. The inclusion of sources like Nagy Iván's "Magyarország családai címerekkel" and studies from the Turul journal etc...provide well-documented evidence supporting the article's claims.
    By dismissing the carefully referenced content as "original research," we ignore the substantial historical groundwork that differentiates these families. Removing the article goes against Wikipedia's mission to present reliable, well-researched knowledge, especially on complex historical topics. A. Kenessey Kenessey Aurél (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have taken the necessary steps to improve the article and align it with Wikipedia's standards. Specifically, I have removed all original sources from the article, even though many of these documents were relevant and provided interesting historical insights. This was done to ensure that the content adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and reliance on secondary sources.
By focusing solely on academic and secondary references, I hope the article now meets the standards expected for inclusion. I believe that this revision strengthens the article's credibility while retaining essential information about the Báthory families. Have a nice day! A. Kenessey Kenessey Aurél (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Everyone knows in 2024 that we are an encyclopedia of notable topics, not a place to host your original research on genealogy. To claim ignorance is untenable. I’m not saying everyone knows about our arcane rules, but don’t play dumb here. We are not a place to prove or disprove anything - that’s the purpose of academic research! In addition, it is extensive and rambling, beyond the scope of its claims, and so poorly written that it would need to be started again to be considered an article. Bearian (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bearian,
I understand the concerns expressed regarding the article, and I wish to address them comprehensively. First and foremost, I have taken significant steps to remove any original research, including personal documents, from the article. The current version is solely based on verified secondary and tertiary sources, many of which are academically recognized and cited in scholarly literature. These sources clearly establish the distinction between the two separate Báthory families, a topic that is frequently misunderstood, even in Hungary! It is indeed crucial that we maintain the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia, which is why I have made every effort to improve the article’s reliability and focus. The argument that the article "proves" something is perhaps based on an outdated version, which may have given that impression due to the inclusion of original documents. These have since been removed, and the emphasis now lies on presenting well-documented historical information from reliable sources. As for the accusation that the article is "extensive and rambling," it is important to note that the Báthory families’ history is indeed complex, and to fully address the two distinct lineages requires a degree of detail that helps avoid conflating them, which is already a widespread problem in many related sources. Simplifying this could easily lead to further misconceptions and inaccuracies. Finally, I would like to reiterate that Wikipedia serves as an encyclopedia that strives to provide accurate information about notable historical topics. The confusion between the Báthory families and the importance of their distinct identities certainly qualifies as such a topic. Deleting the article would contribute to a lack of understanding regarding these two lineages, and potentially perpetuate the misinformation that this article was attempting to clarify. My goal is not to "prove" anything through original research but to document verifiable history that has been overlooked or misunderstood.
Kind regards,
A. Kenessey Kenessey Aurél (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a note to Hijérovīt  : I would like to mention that Tibor Báthory-Szőnyi has proven his direct descent from the Báthory of Gágy family to the Hungarian Government Office's Department of Internal Affairs and Civil Registration, which is why he was able to restore the Báthory name in a legal procedure in 2023. According to Hungarian laws, historical names can only be adopted if the applicant can authentically prove their descent through civil, church, and archival documents.[3][4] The reason you couldn't find any sources about him online is that he was previously known as Tibor Szőnyi, among other roles, as the curator and director of the Budapest Opera Gallery [5][6]. I am a relative of him. Aurél Kennessey. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft:Báthory family (of the Aba clan). Although the subject of the article is notable, the content and style of the article do not meet the criteria. I think we should give the editor time to expand and modify the article, I see a willingness on his part to cooperate. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look the article now. I believe this is a complete and professionally crafted article. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet. A source analysis for the references raised would be ideal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The subject of the article itself is notable but the article, especially regarding the origin of the family, is full of factual errors and misinterpretations, as I presented in talk page. Despite I provided primary and secondary sources, The author of the article could not dispel my doubts. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must fundamentally disagree with you. Your version contains numerous inaccuracies, with László Gagyi's tombstone being a prime example. The original tombstone reads MCCCXXXII.[1] The scholars you cited explain this by suggesting that the engraver likely forgot to carve the letter "L" or perhaps the letter "C"—claims that are, frankly, quite weak. The 1330 document, whose text and essence match word for word with the 1678 family tree, is also dismissed by you as a mistake, despite Gábor Bertóthy presumably knowing his family lineage going back centuries, just as other families from the same branch did. Even the names of the descendants are recorded on the family tree from 1303 to 1678,[2] yet you claim he was mistaken. The genealogical table is deemed incorrect, despite being verified by Orbán Pál, the chief notary. You are constructing suppositions that do not align with the concrete facts. To me, this borders on trolling. If you don’t mind, let's leave it at that, as you suggested, and not continue arguing. I believe in the work of Iván Nagy, Joseph Csoma and Siebmacher and the authenticity of the original documents, while you prefer the works of Körmendi, Engel, and others.
    These are my final arguments: I don't know how I can convince someone who doesn't want to accept the facts, but I will try once more. There are five prominent noble Hungarian families who have claimed for centuries that they descend from the Szalánc branch, and all of them have insisted in centuries, that the elder son of Peter, Lord of Szalánc, with name Miklós, who served as the Voyvode of Transylvania is the ancestor of the Gágyi and Báthory families. Every serious scholar, like Iván Nagy, was aware of this. Do you really think that all this five families were wrong? Only your theory is correct? This is quite unlikely. Look at the list and records of them:[16][17][18][19][20][21] Kenessey Aurél (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a personal vendetta on your part because my arguments are much stronger, and you couldn't tolerate that. I hope there will be an editor who thoroughly reviews my arguments. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read WP:PA. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Denys Myrgorodskyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. UPE advert. Gas man No indication of significance. Refs are press-release, profiles, passing mentions, interviews and x of y articles scope_creepTalk 09:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; Christianity Today has only a passing mention with highlighting the person's notability; Youtube is actually very bad source for citing. Nor more sources are provided. WP BEFORE was applied but I cannot add something reliable here. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BISHOPS, "The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. This includes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops." As a bishop in the Anglican Communion, Millanguir is covered by this longstanding precedent. (See also WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, "The bishops of major denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable.") Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP BIO; should be deleted due to insufficient reliable sources that establish her notability in the entertainment industry. The lack of significant coverage in independent media raises concerns about the article meeting Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and relevance. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should be deleted because it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which raises questions about its notability. Furthermore, the content appears promotional in nature, primarily serving as a company advertisement rather than providing an informative overview of inland waterways. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; general notability fails here; dependent or primary sources do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Only routine announcement are available. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obvious WP:GNG pass with WP:SIGCOV in the Nation (major Kenyan paper) and the Nelson Mail. Was a WP:BEFORE done? Furthermore, per WP:BISHOPS, "The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. This includes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops." Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP ORG; lack of notability, as it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Additionally, the content appears promotional and does not provide unique historical or cultural significance that warrants a standalone entry. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP BIO; depth of the only primary source is not enough for proving the notability Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:BISHOPS states that bishops of major Christian denominations, such as the Anglican Communion, are considered inherently notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BISHOPS, "The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. This includes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops." As a bishop in the Anglican Communion, Ingen is covered by this longstanding precedent, and he is also an acting primate of an Anglican Province. (See also WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, "The bishops of major denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable.") Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Played once for IFK Gothenburg, then in semi-pro lower divisions. The problem when assessing whether he meets WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT is that the coverage of him fails WP:ROUTINE, being transfer announcements. I might be swayed by two or three sources with some more substance. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • probably Delete I had a look on the Swedish wikipedia, but they seem pretty much like routine sources. I don't see enough either for GNG. Unless someone can prove me wrong it's a delete from me. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daichi Ishiyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim to notability, playing 17 times in Singapore and then in Japanese amateur leagues, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no evidence that this ward is notable. There is no evidence that a "suburb" called Sleaford exists, and it is not included in List of United Kingdom locations: Si-Sm#Sl. There are several references which appear to be fascinating books about the history of Newark's elections, but which do not appear to mention Sleaford ward. All I can find is that it exists as a ward electing one councillor to Newark Town Council. As explained in the rather confusing "Geography" section, it is not a ward for elections to the next level of government, Newark and Sherwood District: see 2023 Newark and Sherwood District Council election. There seems to be no accessible map showing the boundary of this ward. (The geog coords given lead to Bede House Lane, postcode NG24 1PY, which Mapit.com puts as being in Beacon ward for district council elections, but unfortunately Mapit.com does not mention wards at town council level).

As far as I can see, all we can verifiably say about "Seaford, Newark" is that is a ward electing one councilor to Newark Town Council, being one of 7 wards. That is not enough for a Wikipedia article.

The article Newark-on-Trent#Governance mentions the town council, stating that it has 18 councillors elected from 4 wards, with a reference to an archived 2011 source showing 5 wards. I suggest that paragraph should be updated to reflect the current situation, where there are 7 wards, perhaps showing the number of councillors per ward (ranges from 1 to 5), and that Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent (and probably the other wards) should redirect there. PamD 07:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK WP:SOFIXIT: I've updated the information about Newark Town Council (which was a red link until a few minutes ago) in Newark-on-Trent#Governance. PamD 07:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this article survives, either as an article or a redirect, it needs to be added to Sleaford_(disambiguation). PamD 07:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I now see that the map referenced at currently ref 5, when zoomed in, shows the boundary of the ward, which appears to be the southern corner of the Bridge district council ward. But I doubt that even this is enough for an article. PamD 08:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Titans/Young Justice: Graduation Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reverted redirect. There are scant sources found on Google News. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG, most sources do not cover Cavanagh in-depth, rather 1 or 2 brief mentions. GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

References are event listings and non-rs entries. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A before virtually nothing. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Young-chol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs·