Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

18 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 17	November 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

European Watch Company

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

The company is not notable (NCORP) the sources are paid and of bad quality not being reliable and independent with deep coverage of the company; 25lucky (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This and this both listed on the page are neither paid or bad quality. They both seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Unless there is something I am missing you can point out. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Hunk

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neon Hunk

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

I believe this article should be deleted for a few reasons; the first and most major is notability. I do not believe, at least as of this time, this duo is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. The article lacks sources, only featuring one that was put in the article in 2015. I've searched for sources to add to the article and can only find one article, a Pitchfork review, on an album they published, rather than the duo themselves. The article uses non-neutral language, such as "other noise/freak weirdos". It also contains a lot of unsourced speculation, stating that part of the duo is working on a full-length album, but this has never been published or confirmed by any source. Most of the wikilinks on the article go to non-existant pages, and no pages for the discography of the duo exist at all. This page has existed for years (since 2004 according to the edit history) and in that time, no verifiable and trustworthy sources have given notable information about the duo. Beachweak (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a Pitchfork review ([1]) and an AllMusic review ([2]). toweli (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These reviews are focused on an album created by the duo, Smarmymob, rather than the duo themselves. Beachweak (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was just noting the existence of two reviews. Leaning delete, unless more sources are found. toweli (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources to establish notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Also found reviews of Smarmymob in Stylus Magazine [3], Dusted Magazine [4], Suburban Voice [5] and this more trivial output: [6] and this one: [7] @Beachweak of course reviews are of albums. Albums are what musicians make. Do you propose an article is written about the album instead? Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there are enough reviews of the album (which there are proving to be), an article could be written about Smarmymob; however, the article on the duo themselves doesn't seem notable enough to be kept, at least as of right now. It's ten years old and only has one, weak source. Beachweak (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that Neon Hunk then should be preserved as a redirect to Smarmybob, failing a keep outcome here? Geschichte (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea to turn the page into a redirect rather than deleting it entirely; somebody would have to write the article on the album, though. Maybe delete the page until an article is published and then turn it into a redirect? Beachweak (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that under WP:A9, if the band/musician is non-notable and has no article, then an article for their album needs solid evidence that it has significance. I'm not sure if the few scattered reviews for Smarmybob will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many would it need? As far as getting reviews go, it doesn't get much more significant than Pitchfork, and I think the other ones look very promising in sum. I'm somewhat struggling to take the proposition seriously that an album with Pitchfork, Allmusic and other reviews would be regarded as a speedy candidate. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, WP:A9 is there for a reason. An album article is not particularly encyclopedic when an interested reader cannot learn more about the band because they're not notable enough for their own article. That's my take on this side discussion about the album, and otherwise I am undecided about deleting or keeping the band and will have to leave it at that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't about the album; my proposition is to delete the page ABOUT the duo. In the future, there could be an article written about the album, but the duo Neon Hunk, at least right now, are not very notable source wise. If you review the article right now, there is one source that isn't very descriptive (and currently leads to a 404). Apart from that, the entire article is unsourced. I still think it should be deleted unless more sources about the duo are found. Beachweak (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Doomsdayer Geschichte (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[8] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [9][10]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cane as a Weapon

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

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.

So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [11]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordillera Negra (Chile)

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

This seems to be a mountain, not a mountain range, in Chile. In any case, I cannot find any references to this mountain except a dot on a map which refers to Wikipedia as its source. Fails WP:NGEO. Please note there is a mountain range with the name Cordillera Negra in Peru, but that is a different story. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Chile. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons discussed by nominator. I cannot find any additional information and sources.

Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find sources for Chile one Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral Searched for book and scholar sources but could not find any. Probably a hoax. Note the article creator is permabanned: his creations should be reviewed. --Bedivere (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a closer look at the topic and it seems to have been covered/mentioned in some publications, including this one by SERNAGEOMIN (geological and mining service of Chile). Also there's an offline work named Carta Geológica de la Décima Región (SUBIABRE & ROJAS, 1994), cited in this thesis, which also refers to the Cordillera Negra. --Bedivere (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well found, @Bedivere! If I read it correctly, the Chilean Cordillera Negra then lies in Futrono municipality, between Caunahue River to the north and Calcurrupe River and Curinilahue river to the south, between Llifén in the west and Huilo-Huilo Biological Reserve in the east. More to the west lies the Cerros de Quimán, another article created by the same permblockied user @Dentren. If this is right, I propose to redirect both Cordillera Negra (Chile) and Cerros de Quimán articles to the geography section of Los Ríos Region, where both Cordillera Negra and Cerros de Quimán should be mentioned in the paragraph on Precordillera. Or should it be under the subtitle Andes? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precordillera would do IMO. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw The references provided by Bedivere and Fluorescent Jellyfish are enough to sustain a stand-alone article.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The nomination has been withdrawn but there are outstanding arguments to Delete this article and a proposal to Redirect it so it can't be closed at this moment until there is a consensus for a specific outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs. 1 and 2 are sufficient to indicate that this place exists and has that name. I can't check ref. 3 because I haven't got access to the book. Athel cb (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emote

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

The article as it currently stands is a pure WP:DICDEF. I was only able to find trivial mentions about emotes in sources, or sources over-specifically referring to a specific emote from a specific game (usually Fortnite). I feel this could become a disambiguation page pointing to acting and emoji among other things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plato's Closet

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

This clothing store does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. The page was previously draftified, so I'm taking to AfD for discussion per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. All sources I am able to find are either passing mentions, routine coverage, or not independent of the store. The only mentions in reliable sources I found (e.g., [12][13]) seem to be very routine coverage – "new store opening in x location" type stories from local media outlets. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and United States of America. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:22, 18 November 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 merge to Tito Puente. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Torres

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

There's no real claim of notability, nor does the subject appear to meet the general notability guidelines. (Note, some content was removed recently, but even if that were to be re-added there's no claim of importance there.) JeffUK 17:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. JeffUK 17:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO as it stands. Cursory Google search provides nothing more than social media. Edit history alleges collaborative act with Tito Puente. After some digging, this website confirms a collaborative dance routine with Puente, along with some links to YouTube. Merge to Puente's article at best. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. Fails WP:BIO. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2023 (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.

Nick Gedney

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Salmon (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McDonald (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Milford

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Foreman (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on Amazon Prime

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

Total WP:ADMASQ. Since when is the station which covers NASCAR a notable intersection.? Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Fails WP:GNG. All I can see is four paragraphs: Announced, Reported, Announced and Announced. The references are highly similar, PR churnalism. For me this was close to CSD G11, but, since it is a disputed draftification I feel it deserves discussion. YMMV 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Business, Companies, and Motorsport. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:ATD - meets WP:NFTV and WP:CRYSTAL as a confirmed future broadcast series. This broadcast series has reliable sourcing confirming its expecting occurrence (source 2, plus: The Athletic and Autoweek). Whether these sources are enough to meet GNG is another question. I'd have preferred the creator not have returned to mainspace from draftspace at this time to allow for better sourcing to be added to it, but citing WP:ADMASQ and contemplating WP:G11 is WP:TROUT-worthy. Returning to draft is the correct option. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney you are welcome to trout me, but that will not alter my opinion. Your comment dances very close to ad hominem. I'm old and ugly enough not to let that trouble me, but it is worthy of mention. I'm looking forward to the fish. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was focused on refuting the central point, with a mention of Wikipedia's old silly fish at the end. Apologies for coming off as overly hostile. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the levity and the apology, both. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SCSI command

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT and WP: NOTTEXTBOOK. I also can't find any sources that would make the article read like an encyclopedia page, as opposed to technical documentation.

There was an AfD for this article in 2005, that ended with a result of No Consensus. Nearly every Keep vote in that AfD reads like an example from WP: ATA. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's an overview, no manual or textbook. Could be improved, of course. --Zac67 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously telling me that a bloated 191-line entry table of codes is an "overview"? This is a glorified manual. I also don't understand your handwaving about how the article "could be improved", because there is a dearth of sources about this subject that would make this article encyclopedic. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leya Kırşan

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the two blue-linked items that she was in, one article had just a list item and one didn't even mention her. Of the 5 references, one just had he age, for two there was nothing there (404) and two just listed a few IMDB type factoids. Previously tagged for WP:Notability by a different NPP reviewer. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the corresponding article in Turkish, you can see that she's in the main cast of various notable productions. I don't have time to improve this right now but maybe Draftify or Redirect to Payitaht:_Abdülhamid#Season_2_2 (mentioned there) and interested users can expand either the draft or the page by reverting the R when they're confident they have enough. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands at the 2024 World Aquatics Championships

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Basically the whole article is to say that they entered one person in that event and they lost. No GNG sources, just one database type source for that factoid. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Qatar, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indra Rajya Laxmi Pragya Puraskar

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Appears to be some type of award but there are no sources which really cover it much less GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Ratan Singh

AfDs for this article:

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

Only holds position within the party and not elected to any assembly and also lack of independent reliable sources discussing the subject. Fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polideportivo Municipal de Manises

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

Fails WP:GNG, Wikipedia is not a list of every structure to have ever existed. Stadiums are split off from clubs/cities when they are subjects of discussion as primary theme. "Stadium" with 1,000 capacity in town of 30,000; many American high schools probably have bigger facilities. Team has played one season ever in a national (regionally divided) league, in 1956-57. Not sure whether there is anything at all to salvage and whether that goes to the town or the team. Not even the biggest enthusiast of stadiums in Spain has written about this [14] Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tirana teen stabbing

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst tragic, it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Schools, and Albania. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why? it is informative. Lightnightx3x (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For something to exist on Wikipedia it has to meet the notability guidelines. Single incidents like this typically don't as they don't have long-lasting coverage in reliable sources. CoconutOctopus talk 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations & Communications Branch

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Also, no WP:RS given. Nxcrypto Message 17:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no comment on notability but the article looks like it was written by Chat GPT and is very promotional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AI concerns aside, it's unreferenced, no WP:SIGCOV, and an individual branch of a union isn't really WP:NOTABLE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saudamini Mishra

AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article lacking WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Nxcrypto Message 17:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion

sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors|Authors]]. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- she has been featured on reliable sources. Like

https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/beauty-and-brains-as-never-seen-before-in-the-genius-of-the-bestselling-autho r-and-artist-saudamini-mishra-aka-dhi-who-has-mastered-her-art-and-the-selling-of-it-to-change-lives-121030901304_1.html and https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/saudamini-mishra-changing-lives-with-the-most-intellectual-stories-1201118011 79_1.html and https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/author-saudamini-mishra-releases-her-fifth-bestselling-book-dhi-s-law-of-nine-archety pes-of-dhi-s-transformation-series-1985264-2022-08-08 and https://thedailyguardian.com/i-wanted-lives-to-be-changed-saudamini/ . 3 sourcs is enough for notability.Stromeee (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeriq

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is the still an up-and-coming artist who has not been gain significant coverage to warrant a separate article. Some of the sources cited in the article are just press releases, others are unreliable blogs. The only promising source in the article, The Cable Lifestyle, isn't independent of the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Airport

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

Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources aside from WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases. Additionally, the airport is permanently closed and has been removed from FAA records. NOTE: I recently PROD'd this page and another user who didn't realize the airport was closed did a good-faith merge with Kaufman, Texas, and converted this article into a redirect, which I then RfD'd, but it failed to reach consensus. Hitting "Rewind" to try and undo this mess. Carguychris (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Carguychris (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: do you have a source confirming the airport as closed? If so, perhaps you could change the article to use the past tense – to help AfD !voters, and also going forward if the AfD does not result in deletion. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. The consensus of the latest RfD was to keep the page as a redirect to Kaufman, Texas. The nom overturned the RfD close to replace the redirect with the article. I have now reverted it to the redirect. While turning a redirect to a standalone article is good, and the way to go, doing this for the purpose of AfD is not. While there was one suggestion at the RfD to restore the article for AfD, the RfD close did not support it. Jay 💬 17:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Shaouni (police officer)

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

A fair quantity of news sources for this event, but the person is otherwise not notable. WP:BLP1E? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Feinswog

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

Delete – article has no substantive references, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no decent independent secondary sources to establish or support the subject’s notability with respect to WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR. He does run https://volleyballmag.com/ which is cited in some 50+ Wikipedia articles, and if that is sufficient for notability, I would happily rescind my recommendation to delete. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find one book review for HoopDaddy [15], which isn't enough to pass AUTHOR. Rest of the sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket balance

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

This has been sitting here as a largely unsourced original research essay for over 15 years. Since there's been almost zero attempt to rectify this, I think it should just be removed from the enecylopedia. (Perhaps it could be thrown into a draft for someone to work on over the next 15 years) ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has a list of sources at the bottom, might be OR, but it's not unsourced. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of the Magadhan Empire

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

A mess of WP:SYNTH connecting disparate incidents across centuries. The subject topic itself ("Foreign relations of the Magadhan Empire") has received no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Bangladesh, and India. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? The article has sources backing up everything.

"Connecting disparate incidents", what do even mean by that? Obviously I would check out all the dynasties and not just one single one JingJongPascal (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has proper sources backing everything up.

JingJongPascal (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Coeusin (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign relations of the Mughal Empire also does not have a source saying it's distcintity JingJongPascal (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: @JingJongPascal Its not that even if article is verifiable it be created per WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion this whole article can better be a subsection in Magadha article.Nor it has sufficient enough of being standing alone.

Edasf «Talk» 15:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not covered as a distinct topic in sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dachuna

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

contested PROD. a female Cornish Dachuna is only known from one singular mention by Hugh Candidus in a list of saints' resting places. i checked the Blair source as i have irl access to it, and the heading is "Summary list of late, non-English, or dubious saints who appear in the resting-place lists". according to Nicholas Orme's Saints of Cornwall,

The reference is presumably to Bodmin Priory, but no evidence survives from there about these saints, apart from Petroc. ... Dachuna is equally elusive in Cornwall, and a similar name in Ireland is male not female. ... In short, there is no certain Cornish context for these names; perhaps Hugh Candidus or his source conflated two places and ascribed saints to Bodmin who rightly belonged elsewhere.

there is no evidence that a female Cornish Dachuna ever existed. she is only known from one very dubious passing mention in a medieval source. fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some of nominator's reasoning/historical commentary is a bit misguided, a lot of prominent subjects rely on a single source, Beowulf for instance is arguably one of those. Whether the saint itself ever existed as a person, who knows, but the cult did; like arguing Zeus didn't exist so the god's article should be deleted. Even the nomination shows that the subject is of scholarly interest. The saint's cult and commemoration are recorded in one of the major sources of information we have for early English saints. The article is a stub and needs more work, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable either. Ironically if the nominator had expended the same energy expanding the article as trying to get it deleted it might not be a stub, some of the info used above could be in the article in expounded form. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what i'm saying, and is entirely beside the point. there is nothing to add to this article, and there is no evidence beyond Hugh Candidus' brief mention that she existed and was buried at Bodmin, let alone that she had a cult or commemoration - scholarly sources, including the one you cited in the article, agree on that. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what i'm saying I don't know specifically what 'that' means here, but everything I've said addresses the points you've raised. there is nothing to add to this article How do you know what can be added to the article? Your reasoning is misguided, just because there is only one source doesn't mean there is nothing more to be said. It's also clearly wrong as a statement, you could have added the quote above to the article, for instance, instead of using it here. Again, misspent effort. An established, culted medieval saint is intrinsically notable and there will be more scholarship, either material existing but unused or in the future. I find the logic and motivation here alarming, you would clear out so many important articles on Wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is not an "established, culted medieval saint". that is what the very sparse sourcing says - that this was probably a mistake on Hugh's part. and i know that there is nothing to add because i've looked for good sourcing on this saint, and have come up very short. Dachuna does not even have her own entry in the very, very thorough and authoritative Orme book, nor does she have any dedications, known feast days, or folklore. the only thing we know about this supposed saint is where she was supposedly buried, from one singular passing mention. please do not speculate about my motivations, either. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, you don't know what you are talking about. Because a commentator speculates that it might be a mistake by Hugh, that's not the last word, we do not have satisfactory let alone exhaustive source coverage of religion in 12th century Cornwall. Also if you did have any kind of expertise on Insular saints cults you'd know that they frequently spawn dopplegangers, gender changes, etc, etc, doesn't mean they are not notable. St Kentigern of Glasgow was likely a gender change, St Ninian of Whithorn is likely a doppleganger/invention (based on recent scholarship). Also, you've made your motivation clear, you are posting here because you want this deleted, right, what's there for me to 'speculate' about? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hugh Candidus and add mention of these dubious saints there as an AtD. (edit conflict) I concur with Sawyer's assessment here that a full article on an almost certainly non-existent saint should not warrant an article when coverage has been so sparse and exclusively focused on the likely falsity of the original claim. However, saint articles have a tendency to reappear due to the general assumption of notability many editors believe they have. A redirect that indicates the spurious origin may stave off any misguided efforts to revive the page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, neither of you know what you are talking about. I don't mean to sound patronising, but the source problems here and the historical issues surrounding the evolution of saints cults are very complex. Also, why would you redirect it to Hugh Candidus? Surely if you were going to delete it you'd just redirect it to List of Cornish saints or List of Anglo-Saxon saints?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that, as I am a historian. You have managed to be patronizing and seem to be taking this AfD far too personally. Your redirect suggestions are inappropriate targets due to the unlikely historicity and singular reference of this purported saint. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking it personally at all. Why are the redirect suggestions 'inappropriate'? Listen, if you want to call yourself a historian because you did a history degree I'm not going to argue, but my points stands, these issues are specialised and complex, I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but this is a public encyclopedia used by millions of people and the lack of relevant competence is important....but unfortunately if you don't recognise it yourself pointing it out any further is likely to be a waste of time on my part. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - especially if the information from Orme's Saints of Cornwall is added (which it should be). Yes, it's a sparse article, but that's not exactly unusual in medieval subjects. It is a bit of a borderline case, but yes, there does appear enough for me to consider this worth an article. I do not consider Hugh Candidus a good redirect target - that would imply that Hugh had some connection to this purported saint, where he is just the source. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it might be worth noting that you were canvassed (diff) for participation in this AfD? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note my reply at Deacon's talk page - here addressing my knowing about this AfD before Deacon posted on my talk page. (I've long had Deacon's TP watchlisted - you might note the yearly Saturnalia posts that date back many years for him (and most everyone else where I have their userpages watchlisted) Ealdgyth (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti, you are approaching this the wrong way, we are people with long-established interests in these articles. Ealdgyth isn't going to be 'canvassed' by anyone, let alone me. When I last checked she was one of the main contributors to articles on English Christianity. 10os articles in which she has an interest could be negatively affected by this selective attempt to impose deletionist maximalism on a relevant article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Your response is a bit ridiculous when you only !voted here after being canvassed, failed to acknowledge that, and have not !voted in an AfD in over a year (and only five in the last five years). @Deacon of Pndapetzim: you explicitly sought the aid of a friendly editor, which is canvassing. I'll take this up with WP:AN next. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF. I will mention the discussion to anyone I think might be interested, I had no idea if Ealdgyth would agree with me or not, I didn't want this discussion to have no input from knowledgable people & just be me and the two of you. If I'd wanted to perform some wicked evil conspiracy on you I could have emailed her or lots of other people & you wouldn't have had a clue, seriously get a grip . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the interest of fairness, i have added what little is available from Orme's book. i do not have access to the Jankulak book so i have no idea if there's more information in there. i stand by my nomination for deletion, however; i do not believe this is enough for a standalone article. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete What's in the article right now really looks like, at best, passing mention in a single book. I would suggest that, unless significant improvement can be made to citation quality, there's not enough here to support a separate article. It's never going to be more than a stub. Suggest merging any relevant information into Saint Petroc. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Petroc seems like a reasonable merge/redirect target to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Oliva

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources I could find about him are tied to the FSF, GNU, or make passing mentions of his name in routine coverage that is almost entirely about Linux-libre. Since notability is not transitive, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was dePRODed on the basis that he received a "prestigious award". This "prestigious award" is given by the FSF, which is an organization that the article and the PROD rationale makes very clear that he is a part of. Regardless, this was dePRODed without the addition of independent sources, so this goes to AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing for this person found, there is an author Alexandra Oliva, which isn't this person. I don't see any acceptable sources used either, as the nom explains. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist incidents in North Macedonia

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

The whole article is originally researched and violates MOS:TERRORIST. The sources are not conclusive about whether any of these events can be designated as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Terrorism, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donevan Chew

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

Pretty obvious promotional article with sentences that could only be written by the article subject or someone they paid to write about them "more importantly, is the owner of four pika Chews (three sons, one daughter)". The only reference is an 3-sentence official blurb, probably also publicist-written. He won a Clio Award, but I am skeptical of that being a real claim of notability. It looks like there were 1,215 Clio Awards given in that year alone. Here2rewrite (talk)

Delete: Seems to be a marketing exec, so sourcing I find is all PR-ish items [16]. Not sure what a pika is, his children? Regardless, delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Chowdhury

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

Not meeting WP ANYBIOP and WP:POLITICIAN. Deleted 9 years ago per A7 美しい歌 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

What is required to be included in this article for it to come out of the deletion process?

The individual is a high profile politician of Bangladesh Nationalist Party who has been arbitrarily imprisoned by a toppled regime for 8 years. Intlctzn (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of long media coverage regarding the individual which spans over a decade.

"Bangladeshi Dissident Aslam Chowdhury released from prison". Foreign Policy Blogs. 2024-08-27. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Morshed Khan, Afroza Abbas, Aslam Chowdhury round off BNP success on appeals". www.unb.com.bd. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP appoints three more members to Chairperson's Advisory Council"."Bangladesh politician arrested for 'Israel handshake'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury walks out of jail after 8 yrs -". The Daily Observer. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Bangladeshi Opposition Official Arrested for Alleged Contacts With Mossad"."Bangladesh opposition official arrested over Israel meeting"."BNP's Aslam on seven-day remand | The Asian Age Online, Bangladesh". The Asian Age. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel". Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy arrested over 'meeting' Mossad agent [ Tritiyo Matra News ]". www.tritiyomatra.com. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Aslam arrested in Dhaka over 'Israel plot' to overthrow Hasina regime". BNP’s Aslam arrested in Dhaka over ‘Israel plot’ to overthrow Hasina regime. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Hannan says RAW released Aslam's photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media". BNP’s Hannan says RAW released Aslam’s photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Govt stages drama over Aslam's meeting with Israeli leader: BNP"."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury gets HC bail". The Business Standard. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy released on bail". daily-sun. Retrieved 2024-11-11. Intlctzn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subsections all can be under controversy, A bio is not notable just for 1 event hence fail WP:Bio, You might choose to add any notable things he has done in the future. Tesleemah (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added more information. Intlctzn (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rapsody Overture

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As mentioned in the previous AfD, the album appeared on various European charts and search results at Google Books indicate some notability. They could be called passing mentions: [17], [18], [19], [20]. But there are "snippet views" from DRUM magazine, The Big Issue, Paris Match, Tjednik (Croatian magazine) that are not fully viewable, and could be significant coverage. I think this is very likely a notable subject and sources are just locked in physical media. If the article is decided to be deleted, as an alternative to deletion a redirect to Prince Igor (song) would be appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of passing WP:NALBUM. Sources presented aren't convincing. I can't find the substantial coverage required. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seongju Oh

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

Delete – article has no substantive references, and it looks a bit as though it is derived largely from what is on the official website (https://seongjuoh.com/biography/). I have not been able to find, during WP:BEFORE, decent independent secondary sources to establish or support the subject’s notability with respect to WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC – N.B. he has been a member of two notable ensembles, but I am not sure that he would class as a "reasonably prominent" member. There are a lot of listings type sources, but I could find nothing like critical reviews of the his performances or compositions. It is possible that god sources in German or Korean exist, in which case I would happily rescind my recommendation to delete. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graphis neeladriensis

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

Species sourced only sourced to predatory journals. Catalogue of Life just repeats the original source, doesn't evaluate scientific validity. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoL recognises the species because it is recognised by Species Fungorium/Index Fungorium (hosted at Kew Gardens). It's also recognised by Mycobank. Both are curated, although they may not check if the journal is predatory. These are the usual sources used for fungi species so should we second guess them? — Jts1882 | talk 14:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:NSPECIES says Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. (my bold). This species does not appear to have that with the predatory journal issue, so normally I would say delete. What Jts1882 mentions is what brings me just over the threshold though. Are there enough secondary sources checking this that aren't just indiscriminate databases? It seems that way based on Jts' description since societies, etc. usually have some checks in place even if they aren't doing a full-scale secondary verification. If it's more of a rubber stamp though that just repeats anything, then I'd be more likely to drift back towards delete. KoA (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult one. Both those databases have listed curators working for reputable academic institutions. I consider them reliable sources for fungi. One problem is that the taxonomic codes don't have provisions to exclude validly published names based on the type of journal, e.g. predatory or self-published (which have recently caused havoc for herpetologists).

What is the Wikipedia policy on predatory journals? Is it a ban or a use with caution warning. If the latter, then I think we have reliable sources to back up the species. — Jts1882 | talk 18:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Am (2024 film)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM; created by an account representing the film's production company Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This film does not pass notability guidelines as its citation are primary sources. Searching for sources is difficult because the title of the film is similar to other very notable subjects. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Cemetery

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

this discussion in rfd was closed as restore, when it should have been closed as restore and send to afd. same rationale applies cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Šembera

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

Non-notable sportsperson. The sources describe his accident, which left him paralyzed at the age of 16, and how he lives with the consequences, but do not document any achievements or any other reason for having an encyclopedia entry. FromCzech (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced BLP other than tables of statistics (WP:NOTDATABASE). Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. MSportWiki (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there appears to be sources but many are in foreign language and failed to translate properly for assessment. Those familiar with the language may search for sources. Mekomo (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Šembera

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

I did not find any good sources to verify that he meets the WP:GNG criteria. The only external link does not work. FromCzech (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced BLP other than tables of statistics (WP:NOTDATABASE). Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. MSportWiki (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen (writer)

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

WP:PROMO, not a pass for WP:BASIC. No reliable source in the article, nor ones I could find online searching for "Michael Cohen"+"UFO" to try to avoid all the references to Trump's personal lawyer, gives significant coverage to Michael Cohen. Instead they only cover his paranormal/aliens output and give him a trivial mention (e.g., in this piece, "Those who smell a hoax point to several suspicious aspects of the video, including the fact that the man who posted the piece, a paranormal enthusiast named Michael Cohen, has been involved with several other videos of UFOs and other phenomena that are of questionable authenticity.").

That UFO Digest and similar are not reliable sources hardly needs explaining. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summers Vitus Nwokie

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

Contested draftification without improvements, so here we are. Fails WP:NBIO. Geschichte (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. CptViraj (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concerns of undisclosed paid editing aside (see: File:Summers Vitus Nwokie.jpg), there are no sources to establish the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mana Nakao

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

Playing 1 cup game for a J League team is an extremely weak claim to notability. Sources in ja:wiki are either primary or match reports, none are in-depth. As such he fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. CptViraj (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dečan operation

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

The entire section on the operation itself is unsourced, and it has 0 information on the actual operation, only explaining the lay-out of the operation and that the KLA were entrenched. The sources only mention the casualties and are not in-depth. The article is also not writen from a neutral prespective with it refering to the KLA as "terrorists" and using serbian letters for Albanian names like Hashim Thaçi. This article is WP:NOT Peja mapping (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Magadha

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

Unnecessary article doesnt needed already mentioned very much on List of wars involving India.Such type of articles should be for present day entities. Edasf (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mughal Empire exists

List of wars involving Ottoman Empire exists

List of wars involving the Kingdom of France exists

List of wars involving Holy Roman Empire exists JingJongPascal (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All wars are properly sourced.

The Magadhan Empire and Second Magadhan Empire is seperated by 200 years

This article will help a user to view all of them in one go

While on List of wars involving India

One will have to switch time periods. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some exceptions do exist and all above article like for Mughals have issue the Mughal one is functioning even more like a disambiguation page.Another thing The first or second Magadha empires separation canT give a valid reason for a separate article.There arent that much wars for Magadha majority here dont have a separate article and some even looks like created by OR. Edasf (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do Holy Roman Empire & Kingdom of France exist ? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions exist They have several wars Edasf (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they are already included in List of wars involving Germany, yet they exist. JingJongPascal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal They have many Magadha doesn't have that big to have a separate list. The list itself looks Original Synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Unnecessary," "not big enough to have a separate list," or "looks like Original Synthesis"? Under what context are you nominating and proposing a discussion for this article? It seems like the nomination is based on your personal viewpoint rather than Wikipedia's guidelines. You need to provide sufficient evidence to justify taking an article to deletion discussion. Personal opinions should not be the basis for judging an article; any proposal for deletion must be grounded in WP:DEL. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India original synthesis is a part of WP guidelines read guidelines correctly first. Edasf (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short List of Wars involving India quite enough by going this we need to create a dozen articles like this. Edasf (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe step back a little bit now? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Edasf (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a wrong understanding of what "Original Synthesis" is! As long as you are not adding unsourced interpretations or inferences to the data like claiming something that is not directly supported by the sources, this type of comparison is within the acceptable range of Wikipedia's guidelines and does not violate the original synthesis rule. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a separate list looks unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd prefer the title "List of wars of the Magadan Empires" but see no reason why such a list is worth deleting. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's unnecessary and original synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Most of these wars ,a article page exists JingJongPascal (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references offer substantial and reliable academic coverage of Magadha’s historical conflicts, indicating the wars' historical significance. Passes WP:SAL.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion Edasf (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf "why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India"–Both articles deal with wars in India over time, but they focus on different scopes. The two articles are not the same in content, although they partially overlap when discussing ancient history/war. The article in question is a specific subset of the India article, focused on a particular kingdom during a particular period in Indian history and India article is much broader in scope involving all territories that eventually became modern India, including the broader Indian subcontinent (modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other regions), covering a wider range of periods, regions, dynasties and also, the British colonial period, post-independence India, and modern conflicts. That's said, this article is not "Unnecessary". — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your points arent accurate there are other kingdoms who had different wars we some even more than Magadha, we wont make article for each. Edasf «Talk» 14:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, but it’s not reflective of Wikipedia’s policies. There are no restrictions on creating articles as long as they meet the established criteria. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting critrea doesnt guarantee article like WP:Verifiability#Verifiablity does not guarantee inclusion Edasf «Talk» 15:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer to this circles back to what I’ve already mentioned about why this article isn’t “unnecessary.” And also, your concern about "there aren't that much wars" being mentioned multiple times is irrational. Articles, whether they’re lists, stubs, or have limited content, shouldn’t be proposed for deletion simply because they’re short, WP:TOOSHORT. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How? Why isnt? Its to you to prove conclusively this article is necessary to me and even two other editors India one is quit fine and this isn't necessary to have an specific article for a single kingdom and just ignoring others. Edasf «Talk» 15:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an immature argument to make! This is a discussion, and reviewers are entitled to form their own opinions and vote accordingly. My vote is to keep, and I’ll stand by it unless you can provide a solid, rational reason for why this article should be deleted. Just because you and other editors share the same opinion doesn’t mean I’m obligated to agree or consider it valid without proper justification. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not forcing you well.Take example of Macedon there were atleast 20 wars involving it will you come create another article? Such types of articles are generally for present entities. Edasf «Talk» 16:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar with Macedon or its wars, but relating that to the article in question, to support your argument that such articles shouldn’t be created is weak and all the questions about "Why should this be kept?" have already been answered, and I’m not going to keep repeating myself on that. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again and do you have source which states a synthesis between these? This article is an Original synthesis part of WP:OR Edasf «Talk» 16:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t wish to continue the discussion, as it keeps circling back to the same point "OR". About the references, it's quite extensive, and my apologies, but I can’t go into all the details right now, it would take more time to elaborate that here. The references listed in the article could be considered. Additionally, I’m just pointing out some similar articles to show that your proposal, claiming "such articles should not exist separately," is not valid. These examples are only meant to challenge the subjective reasoning behind your suggestion and are not relevant to evaluating the article based on the guidelines. List of wars and battles involving the Principality of Smolensk, List of wars involving the Principality of Tver, List of wars involving the Principality of Moscow, List of wars and battles involving Galicia–Volhynia, List of wars involving Kievan Rus', List of wars involving the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, List of wars involving the Inca Empire, List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs, List of battles involving the Sikh Empire.— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I won't repeat myself points. Edasf «Talk» 17:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont compare medieval empires here Edasf «Talk» 09:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why not? JingJongPascal (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because List of wars involving India is enough. Orientls (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @JingJongPascal. On an additional note, the article seems to be extremely well-made and kept, and seems to be extremely useful. Also @JingJongPascal, you do not need to provide citations on the article, simply providing a link to battle/war would be enough. In case, a separate article for a particular battle/war doesn't exist, then you shoulda adad a citation. PadFoot (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. It would be good to see more policy-based argumentation referencing, for example, WP:LISTN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article appears well-sourced and in my opinion it meets the criteria of WP:LISTN. It mentions several notable wars, all of which are suitably linked (per PadFoot's argument). I see no reason to redirect it to List of wars involving India because this entry is significant enough to stand on its own.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hirst

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

Delete – I suggest that the subject is not notable - my WP:BEFORE searches turned up nothing of substance, no reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Music, Television, Photography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication of notability from Google search results. Article has been unsourced since 2006 when it was created. This photoman fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being the "un-named photographer" doesn't meet ACTOR. The rest seems like a resume/CV. I don't see anything about this individual online. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of world champions in NJPW born outside Japan

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

No evidence that this grouping of characteristics meets WP:LISTN and has received significant attention as a group. Fram (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Wrestling, and Japan. Fram (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

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

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison ^talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison ^talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [21], and some analysis here [22] and here [23]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This also seems to be a RS [24], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oaktree b I ran into that one as well but it turns out that she is part of the "Editorial collective" so it may not be considered independent. Then again, I can't imagine that there are many Gaelic speakers in Australia who aren't part of that collective. This is a tough one due to the minority language. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per User:Colin Ryan with hopes that they can locate some independent sources, perhaps through the Irish press. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Spinifex&Sand is right that when an author has only one notable work, and the coverage is of that work rather than the author, we typically have an article just on the notable work. But when there are multiple notable works, NAUTHOR#3 does actually allow notability to be inherited for an author bio, if there is coverage of their "collective body of work". After some digging I think I see two WP:NBOOK candidates:

Dánta Póca [25][26]
Ó Chréanna Eile / From Other Earths [27][28]

And two books that don't meet NBOOK but do have one review (so a second would pass NBOOK):

Ar Thóir Gach Ní [29]
Cnámha Scoilte / Split Bones [30]

I also found this profile in The Irish Scene, which suggests notability, and this interview which does not but could be useful in fleshing out the article if kept. I have a hard time getting excited about only 2 NBOOKs as a "collective body of work", but I think some would consider that sufficient. I lean keep because I think the profiles in the Irish Times, Anglo&Celtic Australia Magazine, and now The Irish Scene together squeak by for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot World

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

Non-notable mobile game. Sourcing about the game itself leans heavily to primary sources, low-quality secondary blog coverage or user-generated social media and influencer youtube videos. The more reliable coverage about SpinX and their business activities, such as from GameDeveloper, Nikkei, or Reuters, barely mentions Jackpot World. May be one to consider framing as notability for a WP:CORP and not for the game itself. I accept the game itself is quite popular but there isn't a lot of mainstream coverage on it from what I can see. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netmarble. Agree with nom that Jackpot World is poorly covered in RS, failing WP:GNG. Developer is covered, although questionably well enough for an WP:NCORP pass, but in any case doesn't have an article, so redirect to parent company of developer. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look shows that the Netmarble article doesn't mention SpinX, but it easily could: [31] [32] [33] [34] ~ A412 ^talk! 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems appropriate to me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. After careful consideration, I also agree that "Redirect to Netmarble" makes more sense. JulieBole (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been claims of significant coverage but it has never been evidenced. Goldsztajn above links WP:NEXIST and the section quoted below I think should really be noted here:

"However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."

I think 13 years has been far more than enough time for the previously alleged significant sources to have been appropriately cited but this hasn't happened, which suggests a lack of suitability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, Gscholar has hits on this organization as late as 2018, so there is sustained coverage, there also seems to be an offshoot in Scotland... We have sustained coverage, but I'm not sure if it's enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Movement for Socialism (Britain). Wellington Bay (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I am re-writing the article. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. There's quite a lot of scholarly publications on this group.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to analyse the changes added after the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is WP:SIGCOV based on the work and sources brought in by 4meter4. It passes notability. Mekomo (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stolperstein of London

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

This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Reason for the nom is that this is essentially very specific listcruft, where the only thing in the list is a single item that is already covered elsewhere. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was the very first stolperstein in england and therefor has a unique meaning is an important symbol. it is very nessesary for people to know it.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly List of Holocaust memorials and museums § United Kingdom could be expanded into a full article along the lines of List of Holocaust memorials and museums in the United States, as there are 156 search results for "Holocaust" in the Imperial War Museum's War Memorials Register. The contents of this page could then be a section there. Ham II (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular Stolperstein is unique because it is the only one in the United Kingdom. This has made this particular one the subject of signifcant coverage, and has also made it the site of activist activities which get in the news such as [35], [36] Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with 4meter4 on this. There is coverage, so we can have an article. The fact there are a lot of Stolpersteine elsewhere doesn't matter. This is the English Wikipedia so we are allowed to focus extra attention on things of especial relevance to those living in English-speaking countries, of which the UK is one. The first-and-only Stolpersteine on UK soil has very high cultural significance. Elemimele (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Legends (Cricket)

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

Non notable cricket tournament trying to use WP:NOTINHERITED to assert a notability. Just because a number of notable former players competed at this event, it doesn't mean the event itself is notable, and the coverage for the event does not pass WP:GNG. We have deleted many similar non-notable "legends/masters" event articles like this in the past. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and England. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Palmer (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only single source cited. Absolutiva (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nomination rationale. Google search result provides no indication of notability of this actor. He fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NJPW female wrestlers born outside Japan

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

No evidence that this meets WP:LISTN, a trivial grouping of characteristics Fram (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Wrestling, and Japan. Fram (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this is a list of 48 female wrestlers, I think it would be best to change the alphabetical format of the list to a table, and also add additional sources. Maybe when there are 90 or 100, the alphabetical format would make sense. Nikotaku (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a very arbitrary set of criteria. Not sure why this exists. — Czello ^(music) 09:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Milano

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article on this young rugby player. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWLC

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one page and one redirect.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DWLC-AM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move DWLC-AM to this title, and delete the redirect DWLC-TV which has no mention at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKC

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one existing page.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DYKC-AM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move DYKC-AM to this title and delete redirect DYKC-TV which has no mention at target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYNU

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one existing page.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DYNU-FM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two entries. Redirect to DYNU-FM and use hatnote {{redirect|DYNU|the TV station|UNTV}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Al-Hamar

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

Declined prod. Could not find any sources in google news and google books. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. I would reconsider if there is anything in Arabic. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources which passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination rationale. Nothing is found in Google search. Mekomo (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Cave (Gibraltar)

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

Redirect toGibraltar Nature Reserve where it is located. Not indepentely notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge absent sources being found (did a light check) into Mediterranean Steps or Gibraltar Nature Reserve -- noting there are many caves listed in List of caves in Gibraltar, so as a whole the caves are probably notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tina's Fissure

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

Redirect or merge to Gibraltar Nature Reserve. Not independently notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gibraltar Nature Reserve. Very little coverage in sources, does not appear separately notable. AusLondonder (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upper All's Well Cave

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

Clearly nonotable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content and image are worth keeping if minimal; I think these should be merged to some larger article in my opinion. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson's Cave

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

Links in ref's are broken, and all the info is sourced from the one referenced book. That book list many, many caves, and inclusion does not make this one notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Estonia

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

Poorly sourced and fails WP:NLIST. The Estonian language version of this article has more entries but also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Estonia. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only three entries and one notable entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773@LibStar: has good potential to grow per e.g. etwiki list. Some references and info are also added Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 46 blue links (ie 46 potential entries...) on the Estonian page, that is an indication that should be noted and that is at least promising. And there is also a list dedicated to those of Tallinn only (in Estonian). Mushy Yank (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NOTDIR and is only manageable because of the country's relatively small size. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with LibStar and Mangoe, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. If it had more links and sources, then it might be passable, but it is not acceptable under it's current condition.

Aknip (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Poorly sourced, yes: cleanup issue. Fails NLIST? no, meets NLIST as the topic as a set has received coverage. (Thomson, C. (2007). Estonia - Culture Smart! The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture. Kuperard. for example or Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania(Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147, for a start) At least a redirect and merge to Cinema of Estonia seems warranted to preserve history. The topic would seem to be perfectly encyclopaedic, though.... Mushy Yank (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and how precisely and exactly is that list supposed to fall under NOTDIR? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears that the list topic has been discussed as a set in RS. That is all we need to prove WP:NLIST. Further, I don't think this list falls under any of the six criteria of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and those saying it does haven't actually discussed or connected the list to any one of the six standards for making that judgement. It's not a convincing argument as the list has a clearly defined scope that is relevant to the Cinema of Estonia. It's not a simple listing because of the RS coverage, and given that Estonian language films get played pretty much only in theaters in Estonia and the small geographic area its reasonable to list theaters in a single page for topical reasons. It's therefore not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", or a "A resource for conducting business", or a "Genealogical entry", or an "Electronic program guides".4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das verfluchte Jungfernloch

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

I don't believe this is notable. It is mentioned as existing in folklore, which it does. However, these references don't feel notable to me. IDK, y'all help me out! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my German isn't very good, but there's references to this cave in books on a quick Google search and caves have very low notability thresholds. "These references don't feel notable to me" is a bad deletion rationale. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic & General

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

All refs fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Can I ask what the reason for this is? I'm happy to fix any issues

Thanks Ecwdgbt (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for reason given in nomination. The lack of independent sourcing makes the whole thing read like a press release. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi

Please could you clarify what you mean by 'lack of independent sourcing'. The majority of the citations are from independent sources including Sky News, The Independent and The Financial Times. Certain points have been substantiated via the company's homepage and their annual report but this has also been done on HomeServe, Legal & General and Admiral Group.

This is not supposed to act as a press release or as a marketing tool but appreciate your point. Would it benefit from adding in any new sections?

Thanks in advance for your feedback! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the article in the independent, for example - the many, many external links in the article are via Linkby which indicates that Domestic and General are paying for them. Which is why there's so many external links - you wouldn't normally see that many in a newspaper article. It's an advertorial, not independent coverage. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for flagging this. I have removed the independent article as it is not an unbiased, reliable source. Ecwdgbt (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A prior discussion from 2018-9, touching on COI in the instance at the time but also on notability, can be read here. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This is an odd one: a firm over 100 years old, whose products are used by 1/3 of UK households according to a 2019 Bloomberg item("Abu Dhabi Fund to Buy 30% of Domestic & General Group"), previously a plc but taken private then changing hands several times. But the problem is that despite their name recognition and near-ubiquity in domestic appliance warranty, there's not a lot of coverage outside announcements of the firm changing hands, which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am close to saying "But it's notable!" but unless better coverage can be found, would have to say it falls short on WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback!

Here are three topics aside from the firm taking hands that have led to coverage that I would argue isn't trivial.

Offices

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/domestic--general-hopes-create-5084777

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/domestic-general-flexible-working-london-hq-revamp-wfh-b942634.html

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/big-nottingham-employer-domestic-general-7422086

Partnerships

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-five-year-aftercare-deal-with-marks-electrical/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/panasonic-and-dg-sign-a-six-year-deal/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-three-year-deal-with-lg/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/hughes-partners-with-domestic-and-general/

https://retailtimes.co.uk/domestic-general-extends-deal-with-john-lewis/

Acquisitions

https://www.cityam.com/american-adventure-continues-for-domestic-general-as-it-makes-second-acquisition/

https://www.postonline.co.uk/news/7955324/dg-aims-to-create-uber-like-claims-experience

https://www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20230629.html

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/domestic-general-group-to-acquire-after-inc

In addition to this, the CEO Matthew Crummack has garnered lots of coverage over the years (see below):

https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/former-gocompare-ceo-donates-major-sum-create-opportunities-students-need

https://newsnreleases.com/2021/08/04/matthew-crummack-joins-domestic-general-as-ceo/

https://www.aston.ac.uk/about/governance-management/matthew-crummack

https://www.postonline.co.uk/personal/7955323/big-interview-matthew-crummack-domestic-general

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/16007578

Let me know what you think or if the article would benefit from any new sections to showcase its notability?

Thank you! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the weight to be placed on items about offices, partnerships and acquisitions, see the Standard notices points under WP:CORPTRIV. The City AM piece is bylined, but is ultimately a summary of announcement PR quotes. Coverage about the present CEO is relative to that person more than the company. You ask about what can "showcase" notability; in a way that is indicative of the problem of an article contributed by an editor with connection to the company at present. What is lacking is the longer perspective: substantial coverage about the firm's history. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I would argue that Domestic & General is newsworthy in its own right in particular when opening new offices and through its CEO Matthew Crummack. Not in the sense that the business inherits notability through Crummack, but that his decisions for the business are often of note in the media.

It is a global company that employs over 3000 people and partners with hundreds of manufacturers to provide appliance warranty to 1 in 3 homes in the UK. I understand that ubiquity in homes does not necessarily mean 'notability' but I would ask that some of the references sources are revisited as "reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it".

Any articles that have been correctly flagged as being biased have been removed from this draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) — Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, It would be helpful if some of these new sources brought to the discussion were assessed to see if they can contribute to establishing some level of notability for this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As AllyD said, it's an odd one. Quick version: the company is of such significance that we owe our readers an article if we can possibly scrape one together, and the sourcing, while not great, is good enough to scrape. Longer version: we're here to provide information, and it's quite reasonable that the more-than-10% of the UK population whose household appliances are insured through D&G might be curious about the company and its history. We couldn't make an article if there was no information about the company, or if we felt there was a significant chance that the information was false (this is the basis for avoiding non-independent sources). But we already apply some nuance there: non-contentious, factual stuff can be sourced from interviews; academics' institutional CVs are assumed to be factually true. In this instance we have useful information, such as the company being founded by the wiki-notable S. W. Copley, and the lineage of the company via various other notable companies. It's unlikely the basic statistics have been falsified. We have a story to tell, the story is not contentious, so the article passes muster - at least in the context of insurance companies, which tend to generate a lot less sourcing than even the most trivial of short-lived pizza outlets. And, frankly, it would look weird and embarrassing if we had nothing to say on the subject of D&G. Elemimele (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as many of the sources cited are primary sources. Ohers that could be reliable failed to provide WP:SIGCOV. This company fails WP:NORG. Mekomo (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]