Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

13 July 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

< July 12	July 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Marek Gajdošík[edit]

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

Yet another long-unsourced article of a Slovak men's footballer who seems to have a minor career. According to Soccerway, his career in higher level clubs lasted between 107 and 800 minutes. He went missing from 2015 until 2023, but came back to play for third tier club FK Beluša, then disappeared again. I can't find any better source than passing mentions and database from my searches. Article fails WP:GNG overall. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Athel cb (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chidananda S Naik[edit]

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

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

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

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

The critical reception section is a stretch, no matter which Indian film won in Cannes, the comment would be the same. Another source about this guy's short film from Variety: [1] (again, only about the award). This AfD is a complete waste of time (caused by undo of redirect to Cinéfondation saying take it to AfD [2]) DareshMohan (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinéfondation#Prize winners: A redirect seems like a good ATD so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#1. The significant award/honor here is 1st Prize - Premier Prix award from Cinéfondation, 2024 Cannes Film Festival, where the film was judged among 18 films globally. The award is well know and has it's own article on Wikipedia, Cinéfondation. There is coverage from multiple published sources that are also reliable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fiercely opposed to keep if everyone agrees he is notable but I think it should be made clear that 1) the award itself has no page, it's the foundation that promotes it which has 2) it is technically the film (a student film) that receives the award, not its director. You don't think that if we decide ANYBIO applies in this case, we would establish a precedent setting the bar extremely low? I do. I don't think that WP:DIRECTOR appplies anyway~~, coverage on the film being insufficiently significant imv.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) On second thoughts "unstriking" (virtually) my comment: I do consider that "coverage on the film (is) insufficiently significant imv." for the director to meet WP:DIRECTOR requirements. Not unsignificant nor trivial and mentioning a significant award, yes but not enough at least for WP:DIRECTOR, I should think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The foundation is notable for the award it gives out. It was started in 1998 and the award has been given annually since then. The award, technically, belongs to the director for being the brains behind it, which is why the director's name is mentioned in the 2024 Cannes Film Festival and Cinéfondation article instead of the producer's name. Nandi Awards is only significant in Andhra Pradesh, whereas Cinéfondation brings coverage from Variety (magazine) as well as Hindustan Times, which would you consider a more popular award now?

Coverage on the film being insufficiently significant? Here are some reliable sources that explicitly mention the film's name in the title: [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Expecting a breakdown, analysis or a review for a film that has only been screened once(AFAIK) is absurd. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some articles that are indeed significant in the links you provided here. ~~Not commenting on the rest, if I may~~. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But since you kindly asked me (not sure the question was meaningful or not ironic): yes, obviously I find the Nandi way more "popular" than the Cinéfondation premier prix, yes. That's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. Here, the fact that this is a student short film is for me, so far, an issue, and I still favour a redirect, but as I said, not fiercely opposed to keep, especially in light of the sources you ~~added~~ presented here (most of them also being on the page, except if I am not mistaken, the article in the New India Express and DDNews). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) (edited my comment for clarification as my comment may have been misleading . Also adding that it's very likely that among the journalists or papers who mentioned the award and interviewed the director, not many if any at all have seen the film; and for me, this too is a problem; basically the question remains: can ANYBIO apply if the award, significant or not, is attributed to the work? Can WP:DIRECTOR apply in a case where coverage, although somehow significant as it addresses the film, is only mentions of the plot, the award, and in some sources of a few facts about production? Most sources are indeed generally reliable, although various articles are not being bylined, which I personally don't mind but is regularly pointed out negatively when it comes to Indian film, some users considering such coverage unreliable as a rule (I don't :D). I am still not sure, and still consider a redirect to be the best outcome. Maybe it's absurd to require further analysis of the work but can we really bypass that requirement just because the film has only been screened in Cannes, and not by the journalists who wrote the article, and is short? Not sure. Sorry for the cascading clarifications. I don't think I will change my mind from now, nor positively nor negatively. Even if one considers that it's the film after all that's notable and the article about the director is only here as a form of substitute for the article about the short, I am not certain that the premier prix at Cinéfondation, although significant, can be considered a major award nor that the coverage is substantial enough. Maybe the said coverage cannot be more than what it is now for obvious reasons, maybe, but still. I've done, again, some further searching and there's also coverage in French: https://lepetitjournal.com/inde/actualites/triomphe-indien-au-festival-de-cannes-2024-386190 or this blog; https://www.inde-cineskope.com/2024/05/cannes-2024-payal-kapadia-et-linde.html Good luck.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? There are many reliable sources for the subject and the film apart from the the six I have cited.

The coverage that follows from someone meeting an additional criteria is just a bonus. Most Olympic athletes, older MLAs, sports personalities, politicians and judges do not have significant coverage. There are many articles with only database entries and primary sources as references simply because they meet an additional criteria and are presumed to be notable. The basic criterion that has been followed until now is that if an award has a standalone article and someone has received that award, they are presumed to be notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? is a very undue, rude and aggressive comment. I've searched for sources extensively THREE OR FOUR TIMES. Just look at my comments (and at 2 other venues) and presented sources myself (you're welcome). Again, the award has no page, and the film received the award, not him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that a regional award is more popular than Cinéfondation and that there is no substantial coverage when the coverage is not even required, then I cant help you. Ciao Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been posted on Talk:Cannes Film Festival, Talk:2024 Cannes Film Festival, Talk:Cinéfondation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film festivals task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards to draw a wider range of editors for discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So he won a sidebar competition at Cannes. The film might be notable, this individual isn't. Redirect to the film's article, if it's deemed notable. This is too early to have a wikipedia article for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear pass of ANYBIO #1. If I were able to assess and read the non-English language sources, I'm confident there would be a clear NBASIC pass as well. ANYBIO doesn't require significant coverage of the person outside of the work, by the way - that is pretty much the whole point of that criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Here is the sources in Indian language [9] which also just say that the film won the award. So is the short film notable or him notable -- I would say the short film maybe. DareshMohan (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I would agree with you, DareshMohan. ANYBIO clearly states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (emphasis mine), while all sources mention that the film received the award. And while I would certainly admit that for a student short film the award is significant, I wouldn't transfer that significance to the person directly. Even regarding the film, it is judged as a student film and I personally am reluctant to consider that in itself the award (although clearly an achievement) is enough to make the short notable (the notability for films is more strict and the award needs to be considered a major award, which this one is not imv). As for the director, even less so, then. Of course, he directed it, but then WP:DIRECTOR would be the relevant guideline. And see my view about that guideline applying or not, above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you both (Mushy Yank and DareshMohan) are misreading WP:DIRECTOR, the point of which is that when the works attributable to a particular creator are notable, that makes their creator notable. This is a major, and well-documented, limitation to the WP:NOTINHERITED principle, which continues to apply in the other direction - the non-notable films of a notable director are not necessarily notable.

What is more, your interptetation of ANYBIO #1 does not, I think, reflect the general understanding. While for collective works, the distinction betweent the work and its creators may be significant for notability. However, the idea that the sole author of a book that wins a major award could somehow not therefore be notable does not reflect a coherent reading of NCREATIVE, in my view (which I believe is the general one). A film of this kind, where the director is universally regarded as its creator, follows the same logic as a book IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to insist, but I think we've read WP:DIRECTOR quite correctly: our point is precisely that we don't think (at leat in my case) the evidence proving that that short student film is notable (work, singular, not plural in the present case) is compelling either, given the type of coverage or and the nature of the award it received. I've already repeated that various times. As for ANYBIO, feel free to change the wording or phrasing of the guideline if you think it's too limitative, but I've quoted the current one and it's pretty clear. The person has to receive the award and the said award (concerning persons, obviously) needs to be both well-known and significant. If you think that evidence shows that the work is clearly notable according to the guideline, let's agree to disagree. If you think that the award received by a film can be automatically transferred to its director and that this is the general and correct view, sure, I understand but that's not what the guideline says. If you think that that award is well-known and significant, sure, maybe, regarding student short/medium length films but certainly not for the notability of a "director" (who was still a student when he received it). That is for me setting the interpretative bar slightly too low but as I said above, not fiercely opposed to keep this if everyone agrees this inclusive interpretation is acceptable and the coverage about the film show it's a notable work. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reasonable doubt that Sunflowers... is a notable film. It clearly meets WP:NFILM #3, and I have seen for myself the multiple reliable sources documenting this claim to notability.

And I will say again: the point of WP:CREATIVE, whether for authors or filmmakers, is to offer guidance for the atypical case documented at WP:INHERITED - people who are specifically responsible for a notable creative work, whether as authors or as film directors, are therefore notable. That's what a significant or well-known work is - a notable one - and there is no consensus to change this well-established standard to require more than one work for this principle to apply. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: I never said that more than one work is needed to meet WP:DIRECTOR nor did I mention WP:INHERITED myself (I never do). That's not my point. One notable work is enough imv. But, allow me to repeat myself one last time, WP:NFILM#3, that you mention, requires a MAJOR award, that's the word in the guideline. Major. Again, the Cinéfondation Premier prix is certainly an achievement for a student film but I wouldn't call it a major award. (See this, for example). And I find it therefore quite reasonable, even considering the existing coverage, to doubt whether that student short film is notable enough according to the requirements of Wikipedia. If it is not, a redirect for its student-director seems to be, so far, the kindest outcome imv. If everyone thinks it is, feel free to create the page about that short student film. I for one, would wait for its director to become a professional one and/or for the short film to attract in-depth attention from reviewers who might have watched it. But that's just me. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Security Office[edit]

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

Delete or merge into classified information in the United States. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is (a) a real functional part of the U.S. federal government (albeit distributed across multiple arms of government), (b) serves a crucial part in the keeping of secrets, and (c) attested to by multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide the multiple reliable sources that establish notability? The ones currently in the article are not secondary sources that we would use to establish notability, nor do they include WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Longhornsg (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short article. Thus Merge to Classified information in the United States while also copying the data to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of State and National Security Council. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if even one Wikipedian volunteers to do the legwork. I took under ten minutes and hit up Google and Google Scholar. I found several sources that look promising and linked to them on the article talk page here: [10]. I have not perused any of these sources in detail, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them aren't usable, but I'm satisfied enough that enough reliable sourcing to justify an article on this topic exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided are either additional recitations of the same definition that do not address WP:NOTDICT or are WP:TRIVIALMENTION that do not address WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those secondary sources is about the Special Security Office. The Rise of the Mavericks book is only about the Air Force branch. Say ocean again (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to classified information in the United States. Fails WP:ORG. There's no inherited notability for being related to multiple arms of the US government. Say ocean again (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Biewald[edit]

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

Already did a cleanup of the article, but I do not think it meets the required depth of WP:BIO. I would suggest redirecting to Figure Eight Inc. which is the notable company he co-founded. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naše novine[edit]

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

It existed, but I couldn't find sources to add confirming it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Dorta[edit]

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

Article about not notable lawyer. Note- Article was created by the subject. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Florida. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Bukit Bandaraya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not satisfy WP:GNG; no significant coverage on the school. N niyaz (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 20–25 light-years[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Administrator note The previous nomination was an April Fool's joke, so I am removing the "previous AFDs" box. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New England Immortals[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Sources in the article are primary and/or affiliated. Does not turn up any news media coverage in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to USA Rugby League#New England Immortals. Mn1548 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept that merge as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Product teardown[edit]

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

The article is currently mostly unsourced original research. While I was looking to redirect this and make a better section about it, I could find pretty much nothing of significant note beyond dictionary definitions. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and product teardowns don't seem very notable unto themselves beyond an esoteric hobby context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Rayne[edit]

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

Redirect undone. Zero indication of notability. No coverage by any reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article for deletion has been compared to nazism. That's Godwin's law for you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Travieso[edit]

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

Tribute article for a murdered rapper. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs; no notable biographical details prior to his death. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times Top 100 Graduate Employers[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. I don't think it is worth a section in The Times article. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Times#Related_publications, agree not notable in its own right but a sentence here would suffice. Orange sticker (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism[edit]

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

Does not fulfill the WP:Notability guideline as it lacks significant coverage that would justify a standalone article outside of Agriculture in Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olive trees and their fruits hold profound significance in Jewish history and Judaism. This article specifically addresses their importance. As highlighted here, the olive tree is one of the most important trees in Judaism and is the national tree of the State of Israel. It played a key role in both Israelite Kingdoms and was planted from biblical times up to the arrival of Jews during the First Aliyah. This article shows the importance of olives in Jewish belief and culture. How does it not fulfill WP:Notability? ~8000 of olive cultivation in the Levant and an important part of Jewish history since ~3000 years. Agriculture in Israel doesn't have this kind of information. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election[edit]

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

The last UK general election was on 4 July 2024. No opinion polls for the next election have been held since then and are unlikely to be held for a while. A case of WP:TOO SOON John B123 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. John B123 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been viewing these UK opinion polling pages daily for a long time, including periods a long way before a general election. I am interested in long-term trends and (polling) reactions to events. For example, I would like to see polling reacions in the first weeks AFTER the general election (now!) to get an idea of the public's reaction to the election result. Please keep these pages and allow them to be updated as they were up until the general election. This page is very useful. Hill Vista (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — Hill Vista (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic[reply]
Keep: Opinion polling has begun and is on the article (party approval rating and leader approval rating). If we delete this article now it'll only be recreated in a week or two anyway as wider polling resumes. I'm not sure I see the point in deleting an article that will inevitably be recreated soon after. — Czello ^(music) 08:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage party approval ratings and leader approval ratings are a reflection of peoples opinion of the last election not the next election. --John B123 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like WP:OR, especially given that the polls took place after the election. — Czello ^(music) 10:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also the sooner that the page is put in place, the better as this will ensure that early opinion polls after the last election are included and therefore any trends in polling from that date will be better defined for viewers looking for the data in a few years time. Crdent (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG, which is what is relevant here. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling for now and recreate article when more polling has been completed and the results published. Redtree21 (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Redtree21 It will take a while before there will be enough data to merit a standalone article, until then it should be merged into Next United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling N1TH Music (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Emeka Chukwudi[edit]

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

Few reliable sources, likely fails WP:BIO. If not, this article needs some cleanup to meet WP:MOS Lordseriouspig 07:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lordseriouspig 07:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as G11 since it perfectly qualifies under such criterion. There was no need for bringing this to AfD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I added A7 to the G11, there was no need for an AfD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete: per A7. Nightrises10 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firefly (film series) characters[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN and CAT:UNREF for years. Possible redirect to TV series, but unsure merge is a good WP:ATD as this is all unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is completely unrelated to the TV series Firefly (TV series), so don't redirect there. Firefly (film series) doesn't exist anymore (speedied in April).– sgeureka ^t•c 10:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yabani[edit]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Entertainment, and Turkey. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a few things for verification; a lot of so-so coverage exists (in Turkish, English) and, although not great, it seems to show some attention to the production. Notable cast. A redirect to producer/network is imv warranted, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of trees of the northeastern United States[edit]

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

A guide article that violates WP:NOTGUIDE. dePRODed in 2018 with the rationale "valid information". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unvarnished field guide key, not an encyclopedic article. NOTGUIDE indeed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Elmidae's statement and WP:NOTGUIDE Lordseriouspig 07:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTGUIDE. ADifferentMan (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can be copied to Wikiguide if someone cares to do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Robbie[edit]

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

Does not contain any reliable, verifiable references and no other sources can be found through a web search, adherence to WP:ENTERTAINER is dubious; limited evidence of significant coverage in multiple notable productions. Redtree21 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. Redtree21 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of images of her, not much sigcov in RS Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Confused by Delete argument that states a source provides significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, much of the article reeks of WP:PROMO as well. ADifferentMan (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha RX-K / RX-King 135[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Heid[edit]

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

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

Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [11][12] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1][2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.

Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.

The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor (given name)[edit]

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

No indication that this is a double name for any of the entries, rather than just a given name/middle name combo. The bishop actually has a compound surname. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the distinction between a "double name" versus a "given name/middle name combo"? Isn't a middle name just another given name (after the first name)?—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A double name is a given name formed by two names, e.g. in either Pope John Paul, where John Paul is the given name. These are usually hyphenated. A middle name is a name that is given but is not a given name. People aren't typically referred to by it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in countries whose forms list "given names", where first name and middle name are expected to be listed. Some airlines' ticket systems do this too. —Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough though I don't believe any of the people listed are likely to be referred to as "John Taylor" in daily life, especially not within the countries they are from. In any case the article's phrasing of John Taylor as a double name is incorrect. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough though I don't believe any of the people listed are likely to be referred to as "John Taylor" in daily life ...: If that is indeed the case (no opinion), the respective page titles should be using parenthetical disambiguation with a more common name, and not attempting natural disambiguation with a supposed uncommon "John Taylor" in their page title. Per WP:NATDIS: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. —Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I'm not sure how many are commonly referred to with the "Taylor" included, but they would likely either be referred to by their full name or first and last name. It would be rather unusual for them to be known by just their first and middle name. I'd assume there's a reason why such indexes aren't typically created on Wikipedia. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there's similar pages at Category:Compound given names.—Bagumba (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those are hyphenated French names. Some are unhyphenated French names, and some of those are highly suspect. E.g. Alphonse Joseph has two entries. Alphonse Joseph Georges has an article in the French wikipedia as Alphonse Georges, and a New York Times article about him also calls him Alphonse Georges. Alphonse Joseph Glorieux has a French wikipedia article titled Alphonse Glorieux, an Idaho Statesman article names him the same way (the bishop was assigned to Idaho), and his own English article explicitly says "Alphones Glorieux was born on ...", so I am going to nominate that (and probably others like it) for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: I've also found several English examples (Friedrich Gottfried, Julie Marie, Rupert Charles) created by the banned User:Neelix, which I have also nominated for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be proven that any of these are compound names. We don't index by random given/middle name combinations. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of this post seems to have a strange desire to remove all links to the name 'John Taylor' from Wikipedia and has been editing out hatnotes denoting this from numerous articles to push this point of view. Given there are over 200 individuals named John Taylor on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor), this would make for a nonsensical decision, because this act is removing a useful search function. Author of this post has also has a history of edits being repeatedly reverted after deleting segments from numerous articles for seemingly no rationale other than styling Wikipedia to suit their personal preference and then nominating the articles for deletion when his / her edit wars don't get approved. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you my rationale, not a "personal preference": WP:NAMB applies. There is no rational purpose for a hatnote to John Taylor in John "Pondoro" Taylor's article, for example. If a reader ends up in the latter article, they're not looking for some other person. FYI, I have finished removing those hatnotes; in a few cases, I replaced them with more sensible ones. The one in John Henry Taylor now points to another John Henry Taylor. Jack Taylor (1890s pitcher)'s hatnote points to Jack Taylor (1900s pitcher), and vice versa. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're so passionate about deleting things you dislike unless it's a spectrum issue. Yet given you've announced on my talk page that you're going to delete names, despite no consensus being agreed to on doing so, it seems you've set your mind to acting on whatever you please without considering the use of Wikipedia (especially for those new to the platform) towards anyone but yourself. Many would suggest you abide by the rules of considering the input of community discussions before engaging in mass deletions which will rightfully be reverted. MrEarlGray (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are verging on Wikipedia:No personal attacks with a non-existent "spectrum issue". An editing guideline, not my dislikes, drives my edits. And I'm not deleting names as you falsely claim, merely useless hatnotes. Also, you've been reverted by both me and an IP for your insistence on keeping a hatnote to John Taylor in John Taylor Gatto, which makes no sense. Finally, contrary to your inaccurate insinuation, I have created dozens of name lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with whatever the community decides. However, I suspect the IP is a sockpuppet of yours. MrEarlGray (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that is a personal attack. Desist, or I will report you. (Or request a sockpuppet investigation, so I can sneer at your baseless insinuation.) I don't need to hide behind sockpuppets. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How many of these people were known as "John Taylor" vs. those were their first and middle names? I don't think this dab page is necessary beyond the ones we already have. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of this discussion was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy.—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this is a list of prefix matches which aren't included on John Taylor. It's not a useful grouping, because it is unclear that "John Taylor" is a double name for any of these people. A link to Special:PrefixIndex/John Taylor on the John Taylor DAB page would be sufficient. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Taylor? So obvious, I guess everyone else has a good reason for not suggesting it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor is not a given name. That would be the only justification for adding the entries to a dab page. Otherwise, WP:PTM would apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm reluctant to close this when few participants have provided policy-based reasons for Keeping or Deleting this article. This shouldn't come down to a personal preference.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: This is not a matter of personal preferences, as MrEarlGray claims, but rather there is not a shred of evidence that "John Taylor" is a real given name. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VanGrunsven RV-2[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no mention in RS besides passing ones. Is not individually notable beyond its series. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[13] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ Comment. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] See comment below following relisting, now that some of that time has passed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.

FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.

But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft". It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.

Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bio. Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Merge (selectively) into Van's Aircraft#RV aircraft series as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a well-developed article. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging everyone who wanted this merged: Rlandmann and Steelpillow. Best, gidonb (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are not Van's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP. (I've left them there for now pending this discussion) Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below. Creating a similar list of all Richard VanGrunsven's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article. I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures. If the outcome of this process is merge, maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each. I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as the best way forward, given Rlandmann's input. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Parker (police officer)[edit]

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

Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [14]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([15]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure of any notability here. Vorann Gencov (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palo-Alto[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. Also, it is similar to both the problematic cases of Milagrosa and Paciano Rizal: it only serves as a directory: a breach of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing about this besides a google map location and this Wikipedia article, not notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of these utterly impossible Philippines articles. It had 195 people living there in the 1903 census. Lots of historical results in English including mentions in parliament and legal matters, and the establishment of a co-operative in 1991, but can only find real estate listings. I haven't searched in local newspapers, though, but I'm making the assumption this needs to pass GNG and not GEOLAND, and I can't quite get there yet. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paciano Rizal, Calamba[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Virtually unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article, with a one but non-independent citation (Calamba city government). The article primarily serves as a directory, with listings of their establishments, government offices, and industrial sites. A breach of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being legally recognisable isn't enough. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard to search for because it was named for Paciano Rizal. There's definitely some scholarly hits talking about schools, but would need to search a local paper in order to be sure. SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milagrosa[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Poorly-sourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source supports the statement about the name change from Tulo to Milagrosa, but that alone does not make this barangay notable. Article seems to have created to only serve as a directory and community portal as evidence by its list of schools and the "neighboring barangays". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ashmalee[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayapa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Another barangay article with questionable sources and scope. Much of the content is too focused on its camp (Camp Vicente Lim), and majority of the sources do not back the notability of the barangay, but instead support the notability of the camp. There is no inheritance of the camp's notability to the barangay. The two other sources are questionable: non-independent source from the city government, and mere statistical listing from the Philippine Statistics Authority.

See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makiling, Calamba[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article since the article was created in 2014. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. There is no inheritance of notability of Mount Makiling to this obscure barangay article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Olaso[edit]

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

Footballer whose article has no footnotes, and whose only references are external links to database entries, and so does not meet general notability or sports notability in its current state. The article says that he played for the Spanish national team, which is probably true but unverified, and there isn't a football notability guideline that says that this is notability or presumed notability. The Heymann criterion is to find two reliable sources that provide significant coverage within seven days.

Draftify as nominator, to allow six months to find coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the poorly sourced footballer articles around, why pick a player for AfD who played for two of the biggest clubs in Spain and made four international appearances for Spain? 🤔 What did your "search for additional sources" per WP:BEFORE yield? A quick web search found me [16] and [17] though for a player of this era most coverage is more likely to be found offline. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable figure, shown by sources above and COMMONSENSE which would say that offline sources exist. Giant Snowman 08:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kenton High School[edit]

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

The article on Simon Kenton High School does not meet the notability standards outlined in WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a directory or database for every school that exists. 1keyhole (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is also not a directory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

We could expand the scope of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 to include 1919 and perhaps some or all of the 1920s. I think Pacific may have played rugby at some pint between 1900 and 1918, a la 1906–1917 Stanford rugby teams. That could be covered in an expanded article as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My inclination is to Merge but I'm a closer, not a participant, and I don't see a consensus to do that. Another closer might IAR this but I'm not ready to do that yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the merge target of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 had already been created (by me per precedent with suggestion from two other editors), what's the point of keeping this AfD open? I don't think there's any consensus to keep this as a stand-alone article. Randy Kryn, you were the only keep vote. Would agree now that the merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 is the best course of action? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Jweiss11, that works. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all editors were in favor of this Merge. But I'm not the only closer in town, another one might decide to close this discussion presently. I just wanted to see more support which Randy's opinion helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, okay, I understand that it's not solely on you to close this. For the record, I'll note two similar recent AfDs with analogous content: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 Wabash football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the last AfD so we can compare? Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD came when the article was titled at Denial of the 7 October attacks, and thus is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the 7 October attacks. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, I remember that one... Yes, I'm not keen on wading into that again either. Oaktree b (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the parent. Quite so. It doesn't address a notable subject. The page largely revolves around and is organised based on one Washington Post piece, as broadcast loudly and proudly by its horribly unencyclopedic first sentence. "Denial" topics normally only emerge when supported by the weight of significant scholarship. What we have here is instead a collection of WP:NOTNEWS-flouting material, with one US news piece used as a washing line to string up a mixed bag of Israeli news pieces WP:COATRACK-style. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too.

Delete - POV fork. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of which article? gidonb (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp×g 🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete second JPxG's arguments. I'd suggest a merge, but there's really not much to salvage. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPxG. As anticipated at the previous deletion discussion five months ago, it has proven impossible to find a source-based coherent scope here. The content is an unnecessary fork from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baanty[edit]

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

Yet another musician, creative director, or music executive who critically fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NMUSICIAN. Another article written in a way that, if not carefully looked at, will look like it clearly passes any notability guideline, whereas it critically doesn't pass any. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Geezy, looking at the sources, they are either PRs/advertorials for music releases or lacking in WP:SIGCOV, they are also mostly unreliable pieces (without a proper byline). The source cited for the claim that they won an award Nigerian Books of Record in 2021, here utterly fails verification because there was no mention of Baanty, Ikpon Kelvin or even "Creative Director" which they won. It is also pretty dubious since the article says they've been active since 2022, so how come winning an award from the prestigious NBR? The other award and nominations isn't/aren't significant enough to make the subject presumptively notable under any criteria. Overall, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NMUSICIAN. The sources cited in the article are PR pieces. It lacks independent coverage and fails to establish notability. Further, the timeline and awards are inconsistent, further undermining the article's credibility and notability.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]