Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

5 September 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

< September 04	September 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Ulrich Lange

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

Only source is a self-published website anyone can edit. It's certainly possible that this could be a notable topic, although I was unable to locate entries in standard music reference works that cover people like this such as the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians or Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Both foreign language wiki articles are built off of the same source. A reasonable WP:ATD could be redirecting this to Thomaskantor. 4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I found mentions of him in some books:

Bach's Famous Choir, The Saint Thomas School in Leipzig, 1212-1804, devotes about a paragraph to Lange on page 22, where it's mentioned that he composed St Mark Passion which was performed into the 17th century

The Renaissance: From the 1470s to the End of the 16th Century, gives another paragraph to the subject on page 276 Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the second source is only available in snippet view, so it is hard to judge the depth of coverage. The first source largely covers his contributions as Thomaskantor which could easily be used to expand that article. I'm still not convinced a separate article is needed on this person. It's borderline.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a screenshot from that second book. More digging found a german language source from 1920 published by the University of Illinois; Geschichte der deutschen Musik von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des Dreissigjährigen Krieges which on page 411 discusses Lange. Monatschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst mentions him on page 184 as well.

Meister der Renaissancemusik an der Viadrina, Quellenbeiträge zur Geisteskultur des Nordosten Deutschlands vor dem Dreissigjährigen Kriege seems to have some info on Lange (p 78) prior to being Thomaskantor, but is just a snippet. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment same source [1] as used in my discussion for the Otto AfD (right above this one)... I'm more clear about Otto's deletion discussion than this one, I'm not sure if this person is notable or not. Otto has a lack of sourcing.Oaktree b (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Jünger

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

Only source is a self published website anyone can edit. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A reasonable WP:ATD would be to redirect to Thomaskantor. 4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting listing for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as per nom. No siginificant coverage in independent reliable sources found to indicate notability. The article itself only has a single line and a single source and cannot be expanded since there are no other sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few more sources when I clicked on Google books, but arguably they are significant coverage. Can somebody who reads German look at those? Bearian (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut pie (disambiguation)

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

Delete per page creator. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amadour

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

Fails WP:NSINGER, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Note tag added. Present coverage all PR. Introducing Amadour, EP being released soon. scope_creep^Talk 16:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy Club of Kosova

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

Non-notable local astronomy club, with routine science journalism coverage of events and activities in the press coverage section. Article could be merged into the mai one about the observatory. Sadads (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Venezuela, Houston

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

Consulates are rarely notable, this one lacks in-depth secondary source coverage to prove otherwise. Only coverage appears to relate to a minor incident where the consulate moved location without permission. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Venezuela, and Texas. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I Racist?

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

Doesn't appear to have proven notability aside from that Matt Walsh is involved. Only two references, both from the same website which is a social media aggregate and may not itself meet the criteria of a reliable source (and should probably carry a bias warning as owned by a conservative Christian broadcasting corporation, with the promo code Libtard to get 50% off to give you an idea). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be a few reliable sources discussing it including Hollywood Reporter and The Hill, possibly more, that was just a quick look. StewdioMACK (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The THR article is a pretty clear press release write-up (doesn't make it unreliable but it's not in itself significant coverage), and The Hill segment is really about the marketing stunt which I don't think really speaks to the notability of the film itself. This has a good chance of changing when it's actually released but on the coverage it currently has it'd be better suited to a couple of sentences on Walsh's page. Chaste Krassley (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: release in 2 weeks and I think AfDs about films whose release is scheduled during or immediately after the AfD come either too late or too early. Feel free to consider this a procedural keep !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Hollywood Reporter coverage referenced above looks like WP:SIGCOV, not churnalism. (It appears to be based on the trailer plus additional reporting about the upcoming release.) There's also SIGCOV in the New York Post (not deprecated for entertainment news), commentary by a staff writer at The Mary Sue and at AwardsDaily. Together, this constitutes a pass of WP:NFILM. And as Mushy notes above, I'd expect additional coverage and reviews in the days ahead. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on current sources, fails GNG and SIGCOV. Nothing else to comment on here. CNC (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources that editors have flagged in this discussion per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given BEFORE doesn't apply to me as I'm not the nominator, I'll ignore this point. Based on NEXIST, granted Hoolwood Reporter is sigcov, whereas The Hill falls short. Citing WP:NYPOST as sigcov is otherwise short cited, clearly a film titled "Am I Racist" is political and therefore coverage is GUNREL. Regarding Mary Sue, an attack piece isn't exactly contributing much towards sigcov of the topic, but rather commentary on Matt Walsh himself. I'm otherwise not convinced AwardsDaily is RS, but could be convinced otherwise. This to me leaves only HR as the sigcov, which per policy, is not enough for NFILM on it's own. CNC (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify as WP:TOOSOON. The only references in the article currently is a site reposting social media posts, people posting on twitter don't prove notability. The other articles mentioned, and that I could find, don't appear to provide enough for notability at the moment. If more appear after the premier then the situation may change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested to Delete based on the reasons stated -- essentially that as it stands, the only two citations don't prove notability (and I'd suggest are not from a reliable source) and that the other existing coverage doesn't appear to be significant.

The page has also bypassed approval in the first place and at least in my opinion would have failed it.

It might gain notability later, but pages typically wouldn't be approved on what might happen. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Just a procedural note: nominators of pages for deletion are by default considered tacitly !voting Delete. It is therefore not necessary for them to bold that word anywhere else on the page as it might pass for a double !vote, even though I am sure you did it in good faith. Please consider using italics. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkeruTomoe I see this appears to be your first AfD nomination, so I encourage you to read WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Notability is not based on the sourcing in the article at the time of nomination. It's also based on the existence of coverage that meets WP:GNG or a subject notability guideline. WP:BEFORE says it is incumbent on nominators to search for additional sources before nominating. Editors in this conversation are surfacing reliable source WP:SIGCOV, and you should consider those sources as the debate progresses. Pinging @Chaste Krassley and @CommunityNotesContributor who are also new to AfD. I also had a lot to learn when I first got active at AfD! Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? new to AfD? With 15+ years of WP experience, I understand the process thanks. CNC (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says your account was created 10 months ago and the stats say this is your 6th AfD. How would you expect anyone to think otherwise? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually check someone's user page, that's how. CNC (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I apologize for reaching my conclusion before I read all of your user boxes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone wish to delete this entry... does anyone dispute its accuracy... or, is the reason merely a wish to censor certain ideas.

Wikipedia is developing a reputation for leftward bias in its published entries. Censorship, in any form, would burnish that growing reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:C80:2E60:4D8E:63B7:8CC4:91CB (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, basically per Mushy Yank. Notability is borderline based on the sources from StewdioMACK and Dclemens1971, so I wouldn't be opposed to draftifying. Dclemens1971's New York Post source should be avoided though; WP:NYPOST calls it "marginally reliable for entertainment coverage" and "unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics", and the article is tagged as politics. I removed some stuff sourced to a Twitter aggregator which seemed to fall on the wrong side of WP:BLP. Deletion should be avoided since this is a likely search term. If there is consensus not to keep the article, we should maintain a redirect to Matt Walsh (political commentator). hinnk (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' or Draftify. WP:TOOSOON, no citations, barely even a stub with the amount of info honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is ongoing debate over whether the additional sources identified by the above commenters are significant enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines or whether they are routine coverage. Please address these sources (and the existence of any others) in any continued discussion as this is the key Wikipedia policy issue that will determine the article's inclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Forbes (musician)

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

Biography of a recently-deceased composer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim here is that he composed the theme music for a TV show, which would be fine if the article were reliably sourced -- but except for one obituary in Billboard (which isn't dedicated solely to him, but just blurbs him as one of several recent deaths in music), this is otherwise referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability: directory entries on IMDb and Discogs.com, his paid-inclusion death notice from the self-published website of the funeral home that held his funeral, a podcast, a WordPress blog and a Substack newsletter.
And a WP:BEFORE search for better sources also turned up dry: searching for just Harry Forbes only got me unrelated hits for different people, such as a military veteran and a hockey coach, while searching for Harry Forbes composer or Harry Forbes Magic Shadows both found absolutely zilch.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Billboard obituary is something, but that's all I could find. A podcast called Toronto Mike remembers Forbes, but that's still not a RS. Just not enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimia Alizadeh vs Nahid Kiani

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

The article attempts to be a WP:SPINOFF from Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg but nothing that is mentioned here cannot be there. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, Olympics, Iran, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added content and WP:RS that supports the article. This article is specific to not only an event within Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg, but also the prior tournament, the background and events surrounding the bout including the censorship, as well as reactions. Having all of this information placed within the Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg article is unbefitting and WP:UNDUE.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources available are enough to have notability. As with any highly trending event at the Olympics, they should have their own article. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary WP:CFORK. The match is notworthy of a standalone page and any descent info can be easily be added to Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, it would be WP:UNDUE to redirect/delete it as the article isn't just about the match, but also includes the prior match, the reactions, aftermath, censorship, etc., and the article is noteworthy with WP:RS.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary WP:CFORK, all of the content can be covered adequately elsewhere. Of the text in the article:

The fact that it's a rematch of a 2020 match is somewhat trivial
Kiani won the silver medal, the latter being the first for an Iranian woman at the Olympics, surpassing Alizadeh's 2016 bronze feat can be mentioned at her article and/or Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics
While Kiani competed for the Iranian team, Alizadeh competed for the Bulgarian team after having represented the Refugee Olympic Team at the 2020 Summer Olympics, and Iran at the 2016 Summer Olympics where she became the first Iranian female medalist at the Olympics. can be covered in Kiani's article and the relevant "Team X at the Y Summer Olympics" articles.
Alizadeh became Bulgaria's first-ever taekwondo competitor at the Olympics, and won Bulgaria's first medal in Olympic taekwondo can be mentioned at Bulgaria at the 2024 Summer Olympics.
"Aftermath" section can be mentioned in either the event article, this can be added to Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics.

In summary, none of this content needs a separate spinoff article for one match. And there is no one sensible merge target. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent summation by Joseph2302. I do believe this does not deserve its own WP article as is seems like WP:NOTNEWS. I do think there's material there that can be put into existing articles--especially since they're both individually notable. I'm just not sure where the best fit is for all the information. Papaursa (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Djarum

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Advert article. scope_creep^Talk 14:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2024–present)

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

Sorry if I am reviving a discussion that has been finished in the past. But all the information is easily available in both List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election (simply sort) and List of Liberal Democrat MPs. I can't really imagine a need for a subset of these. Dajasj (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Dajasj (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started this list as a continuation of the series: List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2005–2010), List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2010–2015), List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2015–2017), List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2017–2019) and List of United Kingdom Liberal Democrat MPs (2019–2024). Moondragon21 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is also List of United Kingdom Conservative MPs (2024–present), List of United Kingdom Conservative MPs (2010–2015), List of United Kingdom Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs (2005–2010), List of United Kingdom Labour MPs (2005–2010), List of National Liberal Party (UK, 1931) MPs, List of Scottish National Party MPs (2005–2010) and List of Scottish National Party MPs (2010–2015). It seems like many of these lists could be deleted for the same reason. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now pending a broader discussion about all the lists identified by Esolo50002 and Moondragon21. It makes no sense to treat one in isolation to the whole set. Thryduulf (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thryduulf! I only have experience with nominating individual articles. With starting a broader discussion, do you mean nominating all of them, or discussing it on another discussion page? Thanks in advance!

I also realised the reasoning above does not currently apply to all pages Moondragon21 and Esolo50002 mention. List of United Kingdom Labour MPs (2005–2010) for example gives information that is not in List of MPs elected in the 2005 United Kingdom general election (and the latter is also not sortable, so it's harder to get this subset). They could be merged in the future, but that would require changes. Dajasj (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election is sortable by party and List of Liberal Democrat MPs is sortable by year, so I'm baffled as to the point of this page, as well as the above lists. We certainly don't need to duplicate List of current members of the United States House of Representatives with additional articles for just the Democrats or Republicans either. Reywas92^Talk 12:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tappin

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GSS ^💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xegma(talk) 17:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. Akbar

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Aparamoorthy (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aparamoorthy (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/M. M. Akbar

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

The person is not notable. The reference provided are only of some news, that too 'times of india' mentioning he is involved in a criminal case. His name itself came into the news just because he is accused involved in some criminal illegal activities. clearly fails natability. Also the references are arabnews and http://www.muhammmadnabi.info which is self published Aparamoorthy (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Parade railway station

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

No evidence of any notability found online, single source doesn't give any notability either. Fram (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, and Australia. Fram (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaza Bibilashvili

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

Although references have been added since draftification, this is a disputed draftification. I am mindful that AfD is not cleanup. This mantra is used often during AfDs where poorly written and/or referenced articles appear here, yet AfD often triggers such a cleanup. Seee WP:HEY. Normally I would have sent this back to Draft space, because WP:DRAFTIFY prohibits this under these circumstances. I would have done so because the subject appears notable, though this requires in depth checking. But I have to do this here. My nomination is to draftify which a piece of firm advice to the creating editor to request a review from an uninvolved editor, probably an AFC reviewer (noting that AFC is not compulsory) before it is moved again to mainspace. This nomination is made to give them a relaxed environment to make the necessary edits, rather than rushing against the seven day AfD deadline. I mentioned WP:HEY before. editors feeling this has happened should ping me, and, if I agree, I will withdraw the nomination, which, under certain restricted circumstances, will be able to be closed to keep the article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am author of article. Would be grateful if concrete grounds for deletion will be explained . I understand that some references are leaading to websites related to person about whom article is, but in these cases there are simply no other sources to reference and I tryed to add as many reference as possible. Please tak into account size of Georgian web, which is small and we have not too many internet sources to rely on. Thank you. Ggotua (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ggotua Please note that I have asked for the article's return to Draft: space, believing it to be premature for it to be in mainspace. Your work is incomplete, references are malformed, the article suffers from external links in the body of the article.

Moving back to Daft space will give you the time to perform improvement tasks in peace and quiet.

To be clear, I am not of the opinion so far that this should face deletion. Other people coming here may disagree. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Georgia (country). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: is fine if the sources are cleaned up, article is a bit messy it seems to show notability, with proper sourcing of course. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Energies Limited

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

The subject is receiving attention due to its recent IPO. Anyways, after searching for in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources, I was unable to find any. The cited sources are trivial, as per WP:ORGTRIV, and the subject does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 13:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. GrabUp - Talk 13:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the situation might change within a few months seeing the amount of coverage around the IPO. Broc (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love Brand & Co.

AfDs for this article:

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

This promotional article was refunded after soft deletion with a promise from a quickie-autoconfirmed SPA that "I have gathered a few new sources to support the article." However, a week later, the article is untouched, and this subject still fails WP:NCORP. The sources are a mix of primary sources, promotional fluff, sponsored content, trivial mentions, user-generated content, interviews, and churnalism -- none of it WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article has not improved since the last nomination. The sources are mostly sponsored articles plus an interview and a blog post. Fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Hello. I apologize for the very delayed response. There was an unexpected delay on my end, and I forgot to update the page as mentioned. I have just updated LOVE BRAND & Co. with additional references as promised. Please check it, and hopefully, you can move it to the draftspace instead of deleting it. Thank you. QuincKristoffer (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The added sources are absolutely not WP:SIGCOV. A "Forbes contributor" blog post is not a reliable source, and the other three added sources (Grazia Daily, the Independent and Evening Standard) are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this brand in lists of capsule product reviews. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some more sources andd although at this point I make no comment about whether they meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I hope we can at least be consistent in our approach to evaluating sources that meet GNG/NCORP.

Kensington Mums website has extensive information on the background to the company and says "Since day one, LOVE BRAND & Co. has been donating a percentage of revenue – not profits to protecting the natural world. Every year, LOVE BRAND & Co. supports and works closely with remarkable conservation charities and foundations, helping ensure the survival of some of the most vulnerable species and habitats on earth." and "The collections are 100% vegan and produced in Europe using the finest organic and recycled fabrics. The brand has grown into a global lifestyle brand..."
Drapers website also provides information on the company and their prospects and says "Positing a branded offer on making a link with charity has a relatively long history for brands, but an entire shop founded on the notion of giving a portion of the sales to selected causes is more unusual. To make this proposition viable, ticket prices have to be high - operating costs in this part of London tend to be on the high side and if 5% of the value of sales is going to charities, then volume may also have to form part of the equation."
This in Tempus Magazine says "Since its launch in 2010, Love Brand has become the go-to summer lifestyle brand for the discerning male shopper, drawn as much by its clever, colourful prints and comfortable fit as its strong eco credentials. The collections, which include classic linen shirts, T-shirts, shorts and trousers, are 100% vegan and produced in Europe using the finest organic and recycled fabrics. The label’s best-selling swim shorts (for men and boys) are made entirely from recycled plastic."
This in FashionBeans says "The founding concept of the brand, which was launched in 2011, was to deliver “fashion for the love of elephants”. With this motto in mind, not only does Love Brand & Co. offer luxury beachwear to fashionable men, but the brand also donates 5% of its sales to elephant conservation, supporting select elephant charities: Elephant Family, The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust and Tusk Trust."
This written by Editorial Staff of Authority Magazine says "Founded by Rose and Oliver Tomalin, Love Brand & Co. is a sustainable luxury resort and swimwear brand that not only creates exceptional, stylish garments but also seeks to protect the environment. A certified B-Corp that has since day one been donating 1% of revenue, not profit, to charities around the world and protecting an amazing array of endangered species and wild landscapes, Love Brand & Co. has been redefining beachwear with a greater purpose."
[https://uk.news.yahoo.com/best-sustainable-fashion-brands-put-154733541.html This in the Evening Standard" says "Love Brand & Co. was founded by Oliver Tomalin in 2010 with a commitment to protecting endangered and vulnerable wildlife. Members of 1% For The Planet, the brand donates a percentage of annual net revenue to fund worldwide projects that promote human-wildlife coexistance, as well as donating products to communities as a gesture of thanks for their important role in ensuring a future for endagered wildlife - at the moment, they’re working with families in the Assam region in India who help with elephant conservation."

The above is extensive SIGCOV coverage in reliable sources which go beyond trivial mentions. Although some of the articles are based on interviews, they also contain sufficient content which does not appear in quotes. My initial thoughts are that none of these meet GNG/NCORP but perhaps others can check. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing Quick comments:

KensingtonMums is a blog and thus a WP:SPS; not reliable.
Drapers is a fashion industry WP:TRADES publication, which are generally not considered sufficiently independent.
The Tempus source is WP:INTERVIEW-based and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
As a product review FashionBeans appears to offer WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS.
The Authority Magazine link is dead and not archived so I can't review it.
The Evening Standard link is a mention in a longer list, not WP:SIGCOV

Thus I agree with you, with one exception, these do not contribute to WP:NCORP, the governing standard -- we need more to keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like delete, but a little more discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The user who requested refund and has added material to the page has now disclosed receiving payments for this editing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is PROMO. The paid editing, the SPI and the lack of any kind of decent coverage... I don't see RS, other than the Independent that talks about shirts, that we could use to build an article. I don't find anything that isn't an interview with the founder or PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Gong

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

It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2018 PhD and assistant professor with a handful of citations. A prize for undergraduate work does not grant notability, nor does the CAREER grant. Performance on the IMO might tend to meet GNG, if it were widely covered by reliable independent sources, but about all I found was a passing mention in Wired. [2] Recently deleted by PROD and undeleted by request on WP:RFU. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 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}}.

Delete. No evidence yet of significant achievement WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, Puerto Rico, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm very much in favor of showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, but the pedestal needs to be something they are already standing on, not something we place in front of them as an obstacle to trip over. She has not yet had the impact in post-student research needed for WP:PROF; although people at this point in their career can sometimes pass, doing so typically takes work with extraordinary impact and major prizes. Instead she is on a promising academic career track and if she keeps it up I would expect her to pass WP:PROF eventually, but eventually is not now. That leaves the IMO accomplishments and Schafer prize, which are separate enough to save the article from WP:BIO1E but would require in-depth coverage of her accomplishments in independent media for WP:GNG-based notability. I don't see that independent coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, I agree with all of the above. Like virtually all assistant professors, this is WP:TOOSOON.Qflib (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After an unsuccessful search for independent news coverage, I have to agree with the delete !votes. Spacepine (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as David Eppstein notes she has IMO accomplishments which don't have in-depth coverage but do have a couple of sentences in three reliable secondary sources. Agree she doesn't have enough yet for WP:PROF but may for WP:GNG depending how notable the math olympiad accomplishments are. Nnev66 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not about significance of accomplishments at all. It is about coverage of those accomplishments in multiple reliable sources, each published independently of the article subject and the events they describe, and with in-depth coverage of the article subject. What sources do you think contribute towards that criterion? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the two I was thinking of. I found a third but didn’t add it to the page because I wasn’t sure it would matter. Nnev66 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I saw someone added a NYTimes reference which I added to my list below. I changed my recommendation from “Weak keep” to “Keep”. There has been much better sourcing since the beginning of this discussion so I encourage folks who voted earlier to have another look. Nnev66 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the entirety of the coverage in the NYTimes about Gong, a sentence only half about her: "Since then, two female high school students, Alison Miller, from upstate New York, and Sherry Gong, whose parents emigrated to the United States from China, have made the United States team (they both won gold)." That is definitely not an in-depth source in the sense required by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a second sentence later on: “Ms. Miller, who is 22 and recently graduated from Harvard, and Ms. Gong, 19 and a Harvard sophomore, both cite Ms. Wood as their role model.” I had noted earlier that none of the references I found have more than two sentences about Gong - you had asked me to list the reliable secondary sources so I did. My original question was whether IMO achievements are notable - they have been covered in top sources. Nnev66 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable", in the context of an AfD, means that there exist reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, not merely that "they have been covered in top sources". So you found a second half-sentence in one source; two half-sentences is still not significant coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These four references have more coverage of the subject. Three were written to highlight winning the Alice T. Schafer Prize. Nnev66 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timmerman, Michelle B. (December 10, 2010). "Sherry Gong". The Harvard Crimson.

"Sherry Gong named Clay Olympiad Scholar". Clay Mathematics Institute. June 27, 2005. Archived from the original on 2012-05-11.

"Alice T. Schafer Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman 2011". awm-math.org. Association for Women in Mathematics.

"Math In The News | Sherry Gong Receives 2011 Alice T. Schafer Prize". Mathdl.maa.org. Mathematical Association of America. 2011-01-14. Archived from the original on 2012-03-08.

Nnev66 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McGuire, Annie; Collins, Donald (24 July 2002). "Mind-boggling games as the whiz-kids limber up for Glasgow Maths Olympiad". The Herald. ProQuest 332893451.

"Rising Stars". Science. 317 (5842): 1153. 31 August 2007. doi:10.1126/science.317.5842.1153c.

Rimer, Sara (10 October 2008). "Math Skills Suffer in U.S., Study Finds". The New York Times.
Nnev66 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A coverage in Chinese media was added.
"美国华裔女孩5次参加国际数学奥赛3次拿奖". news.sohu.com, 2007-08-12.

24.107.3.211 (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 24.107.3.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is Sherry Gong's mother. I saw your discussion about media coverage of Sherry Gong. I will not vote because of the conflict of interest, but I would like to contribute some information about in depth coverage about her that was in independent media in Puerto Rico, specifically, El Nuevo Dia (Puerto Rico's most circulated newspaper, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nuevo_D%C3%ADa) and The San Juan Star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_San_Juan_Daily_Star).

This coverage haven't been put online, but I have photos of the articles:

1. August 2, 2001: El Nueva Dia, page 22. See

https://ibb.co/FqhjzCX

2. August 3, 2001: El Nueva Dia, page 3. See

https://ibb.co/qMDPKGd

3. August 5, 2001: The San Juan Star, page 10. See

https://ibb.co/Jmd7Spn

4. September 16, 2003: El Nueva Dia, page 78. See

https://ibb.co/TH0N4Nz Sanjuanli (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Sherry Gong's mother. I hope she will become a regular contributor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately the only link of hers that I have been get to looks just like local Churnalism and is not enough to pass GNG. Of course, it is accepted by editors here that WP:Prof is failed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree. Not of welcoming Sherry Gong's mother and hoping she contributes to Wikipedia as I agree with that. But The San Juan Star article does not read like churnalism to me. The story has a human interest angle but it's written by a reporter who used to work for the Associated Press and provides significant coverage of Gong winning a silver medal at the IMO at age 11 when she was on the Puerto Rican team. It adds to the other IMO coverage of Gong. Nnev66 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gong is the only U.S. woman who won medals in both IMO and IPhO. This achievement qualifies her for a page. Significant improvements have been made on the page. The sections about IMO performance and coaching are rewritten with more details and independent references included. In the career section, Gong's notable contributions to mathematical research are included too. 128.252.229.153 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The research contributions are far too early in the subject's career to meet any of the eight criteria described in WP:NPROF. It's virtually impossible for an assistant professor to meet that standard and so WP:GNG is the only possibility. Qflib (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 128.252.229.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Just add my two cents to this debate. I think Sherry Gong can be truthfully characterized as a rising star who is known for her exceptional contributions to the mathematical community, particularly in inspiring and supporting young women in mathematics. Alongside Melanie Wood and Allison Miller, Sherry is one of the few female students to have represented the USA in the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) before 2024. Her accolades include one gold, two silver, and one bronze medal at the IMO, along with a silver medal at the International Physics Olympiad (IPhO). Since then, she has been instrumental in training and mentoring female students for the International Math Olympiads, the European Girls’ Math Olympiad (EGMO) and the China Girls Math Olympiad (CGMO). Her efforts have made a significant impact on the next generation of young women in mathematics. Her success has been covered by prominent media outlets in both the USA and China, including The New York Times, The Atlantic, the Herald (Glasgow), Science, and Sohu.

In short, I think what distinguishes Sherry from other rising stars is that she serves as a role model for American female students pursuing careers in mathematics and science. From this perspective, her impact on the mathematics community is in fact long-lasting. 67.252.7.30 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources to support those claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the comment! Here are the sources. Some may be duplicating what was already mentioned above. Sherry may not be at the spot light of the coverage, but the importance of her role should be evident.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/education/10math.html (NY Times)

https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209 (IMO record)

https://www.aapt.org/olympiad2006/ (IPhO record)

https://www.ams.org/news?news_id=836 (assistant coach)

https://www.egmo.org/people/person110/ (Leader, Deputy Leader)

https://www.myscience.org/news/wire/cmu_hosts_new_math_camp_for_high_school_girls-2022-cmu (math camp coach)

https://www.news-gazette.com/wkio/vipology-single/html_9787332c-8a77-11ec-84d7-235488f5ac90.html?id=114973&category=girl-power (math camp coach)

https://www.g2mathprogram.org/staff (G2 program for female students)

https://math.virginia.edu/2019/09/sherry-gong-lunch/ (AWM meeting) 67.252.7.30 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A chat over sandwiches is not a significant event in the life of an academic. Any time a scientist from another school comes to my university to present a colloquium talk for the physics department, we take them to lunch, and we invite students so they can have a casual conversation with the visitor. Talking up the importance of an event like that does Gong no favors. Indeed, it makes it sound like she is being hyped up by a public-relations crew that has no understanding of mathematics.

The G2 website is not an independent source. Anybody can put up a website and say things about themselves. Who, other than the G2 program, has written about the G2 program? Likewise, the "myscience.org" item is just a press release, a type of source that does us basically no good whatsoever, and on top of that, it doesn't even give Gong a single full sentence. The "news-gazette.com" page is even worse: it's a recycled press release, just scraped and churned so they can have some text on their website.

I'm all for showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, as David Eppstein put it above, but all we've got right now is fluff. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that we frequently take colloquium speakers to lunch. But it is rare that we invite a speaker for the purpose of meeting with students. This occurs only when the speaker has something exceptional that would benefit the students. Is it not so? 67.252.7.30 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although such things are very nice, they are almost never notable - and I've been invited to speak at universities for the sole purpose of meeting with students myself, and I am not notable. The only thing that would make it notable would be if it was covered by multiple independent, mainstream sources. So if the Boston Herald and the New York Times covered the colloquium event with focused articles on the colloquium then I'd agree that it was significant, but this is not the case. Please see WP:N.

Incidentally, can you please explain what you mean by "we?" Do you have a connection to the subject of the article? Qflib (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.252.7.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 128.194.2.54 has made few or no other edits other than to initiate a WP:PROD for Sherry Gong which led to this AfD discussion. The IP address is associated with Texas A&M University where the subject of the article is currently a professor. How much if at all does this matter? Nnev66 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have little enough to do with Texas A&M, and made my own independent assessment of notability before this nomination, which I take responsibility for. The answer to your question is "not at all" -- even if the IP was a banned user, WP:PROXYING would apply. I remain unconvinced that the series of passing mentions and non-independent coverage adds up to a pass of WP:BASIC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving my comment to where you thought it should go as I wasn't sure and for your answer to my question. I would have thought The Harvard Crimson or Mathematical Association of America were independent of the subject but I assume because the subject attended Harvard and received medals in math competitions they are not orthogonal. What about the Mom's scans of articles from Puerto Rican newspapers? It would make sense that there would be more excitement about the subject in Puerto Rico as she was the first from there to win a medal. Unfortunately I couldn't find The San Juan Star article in newspapers.com or Proquest. As I re-read WP:BASIC, it seems to me that the mentions in The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Science (magazine) are more than trivial. It's true there's no in-depth coverage but they are more than trivial in-passing mentions but rather acknowledgments of accomplishment at the International Math Olympiad. Nnev66 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local news coverage celebrating a local person's achievements, however admirable, is not enough for WP:NOTABLE. Also see WP:SUSTAINED. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Qflib (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak keep Per meeting criteria #2 of WP:NPROF. CaptainAngus (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF#C2 explicitly excludes student awards, even at the graduate school level. See the specific criteria notes, 2c. The only awards here are at the high school (IMO) and undergraduate (Schafer) levels. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't catch that. I changed my reco to weak keep, under criteria #7 of WP:NPROF, in that her unique achievement of winning both IMO and IPhO. CaptainAngus (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that these gold medals are not "winning", right? There were for instance 58 gold medalists at the 2024 IMO. Also, that is not even close to the purpose of PROF#C7, which is about making research contributions that have a significant impact on society, or being famous as a leading expert on some topic, not about achieving a good score in a high school competition. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you add the [failed verification] after "tying for seventh place out of 536 participants"

This fact is showed in reference [4]

https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209

In year 2007 of the above reference, it shows that her score was 32, rank 7, and relative 98.84%

Could you please add reference [4] at the place? Thank you. Sanjuanli (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are interpreting my [failed verification] tag incorrectly, despite the tag having a clearly stated rationale. It was entirely about the fact that, at the time I added the tag, the article claimed that she was one of four female US participants based on a source that listed three female US medalists, also, no, I will not participate in refbombing the article with tiny minutiae based on sources that have no depth of coverage of the subject. That is neither the way to build a Wikipedia article of any quality nor to find notability for the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed @David Eppstein's [failed verification] tag when I found a journal article on "The Gender Gap in Secondary School Mathematics at High Achievement Levels" reference which noted only three girls had participated on US teams in IMO (as of 2010) and re-wrote sentences to match sources. I was the one who moved the [failed verification] to the line about tying for seventh place out of 536 participants as this is not mentioned in the reference next to this line. Since reference [4] is already used in the article and it supports rank 7, score 32 I went ahead and added it at the end of the line. Since the source was already used once in the article I figured it was OK to use it again as it wasn't adding to the already long list of references that don't add to notability on their own and make it harder for editors to evaluate the article. Nnev66 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the article talk page and not on this AfD, right? Qflib (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadpur A. Gafur Government Primary School

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

Other than some passing mentions, there is no coverage about this primary school. There are million schools like this in Bangladesh, we don’t create article just because it exists. The school fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your argument for why it should be deleted has several problems, You said "There are milion schools like this in Bangladesh'', This is factually incorrect because there are about 5 to 8 times less schools in Bangladesh than you said, Even though the report is 3 years old, not many instituitions have been created in just 3 years. And also, It would be grammatically correct, if you said ''there are millions of schools like this one in Bangladesh,'' I think you forgot to add s to article. I also have spelling problems and also problems in grammar, The spelling and issues in grammar are not really the problem, Contradictions are the problem. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Most pages in fact, 50% of all pages about schools need to be deleted then, There are several sources talking about the instituition and about it. There are not just passing mentions, Not every instituition will get significant coverage, Yes, just because a school exists does not always mean, It should get it's own page. That is correct. However some schools get attention from Independent and Non-Independent Newspapers, News Portals and Websites, Those are the ones that I am creating now, I might have made mistakes in the past, However I now kind of understand. And, in my opinion, this system sucks, If a page gets deleted, and then the topic gets high attention and coverage from many sources, It will still be deleted because It has some similiarity of the page when It was previously deleted. There are not milions of schools in Bangladesh, That is factually incorrect, You are just saying factually incorrect stuff and try to make sense, Just because you have a high edit count, and there is less sources of a instituition than others does not mean It will be deleted, Instead of constantly nominating pages for deletion, It is better to find sources, Improving the page and if unable to find any, then it makes sense to nominate it for deletion. I will try to find sources about the instituition. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please provide significant coverage from reliable sources (see WP:SIGCOV) rather than adding 17 passing mentions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all citations just mention the name, Some citations do provide some other information, that is why I put citations that just mentions the school next to name or other text. There are thousands of pages with citations that just mention the name and nothing else that remains and does not get nominated with, and those pages are seen by hundreds or even thousands, yet no nominations, Meanwhile pages like this one have information get nominated for deletion, despite giving more information than just the name. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are passing mentions, directory listings, or talks about a teacher dies in road accident. As i mentioned above, there is zero WP:SIGCOV about this school. Most of them are also unreliable. Please provide sources that are SIGCOV and reliable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are unreliable? Ok, and there are some passing mentions and articles about a teacher who unfortunately died in a road accident, However there is more than that, Sure I will try to provide more information. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDMT Prabhavati Public School

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Odisha. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: Even there's only primary sources, that warrants an own article about the school. So, it's not a valid reason for deletion. Further please see the google reviews to see it's existence Veejs7er (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Secondary schools were once inherently notable, and many articles were created on that basis. That changed a few years ago. Schools must now pass WP:NSCHOOL. Existence is not sufficient. There must be notability. This is irrespective of the date the article was created 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. This basic rule requires that “multiple” sources exist - at least 2 or 3. In fact, having only one source is equivalent to original research, which we’ve never, ever published, because we are not a primary source, and in 2024 everyone knows that. Existence is not enough: there are rules to avoid chaos. I’m a bit more lax in my own standards, but even under those, I’d delete this page. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Prydryk

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Blumenfield

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Kim (poker player)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ruane (poker player)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Heizung GmbH

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

Unsourced for over a decade and does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Chidgk1 (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Germany, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dyer (poker player)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke Resources

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs mixes the mine and the corp which are not one entity. Corp references are routine business news, funding and so. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Duek

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian P. Lusardi

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:CRIMINAL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malo Latinois

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Trip series 8

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

Has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade. No objection if anyone merges it to Coach trip but it does not seem notable enough to deserve its own article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies. Every of the 18 series has a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Beckley

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Wynne

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

Cannot find any WP:RS about the person Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep British Film Institute does look like a reliable source, and did have a significant screen career, there were several red links before this article was created. PatGallacher (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Badami (1786)

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

Y. N. Deodhar is not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, nor WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they are not a historian and are thus an unreliable source. Google scholar wields no results; [3]

Sanish Nandakumar is not a historian, and has a B.S in economics, they are in no way scholarship, especially only having made one book. - No results on google scholar: [4]

This page is poorly created with a spam link of sources in each paragraph.

The other sources provide little but a passing mention. [5] Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Y.N. Deodhar is a M.A. and also a PHD in history which is mentioned in the source used in the article itself. [6] and Another source calls Y. N. Deodhar an “veteran historian” [7]. Also your search results doesn't even mentions the name of "Y. N. Deodhar".

Y. N. Deodhar's book [8] along with these two reliable sources [9] (page no 52-53), [10] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event. GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y.N Deodhar is not cited as having a PHD in history, he's not even on google scholars, which is what you pointed out for me by saying "your search results doesn't mention the name", yes, that's the point, he's not a scholar cited on google scholars.

And I'm sorry but "Venkatesh Rangan" is not a historian, he's an author. [11]

Deodhar, already unreliable as aforementioned, his book provides little insight. The two other sources you cited, are already responded towards, Govind is not a historian. Noorullah (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move on from Google Scholars. I'm not gonna talk about Y. N. Deodhar again because I've already provided an source which literally calls Y. N. Deodhar an “Veteran historian”.

Although Venkatesh Rangan mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian, I've no idea that why does it matter that Venkatesh Rangan is a historian or not because Venkatesh Rangan's book isn't even used anywhere in the article that's totally irrelevant in the AfD (WP:AADP).

Even the Uttarakhand Open University here [12] (page no 239) mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian.

Govind Sakharam Sardesai is a famous historian,[13] there is literally a Wikipedia article on him (Govind Sakharam Sardesai) which also calls him a historian. GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 10:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book written by Govind is outdated per WP:RAJ(1946). Couldn’t find much info about Deodhar other than the links you’ve showed. I guess he’s okay based on what I’m reading, but if that’s the only reliable source that mentions this, then I’m not sure it requires its own separate article.

“Consequent upon the capture of Badami, the strong fort of Bhadur Band capitulated to the Marathas and Haripant proceeded to capture copal, another fort about four miles distant.” There’s only one line that mentions this battle in Deodhars book, and there are no other details other than “it was captured”. This tells me that this event lacks Wikipedia:Notability, which means it doesn’t warrant its own article if it’s based on one line from a book. The other sources don’t seem reliable or fall under WP:RAJ. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

As per explanation given by @GroovyGrinster the article is notable and sources provided are WP:RS giving significant coverage of this Siege even if we don't consider YN Deodhar the other two i.e Sen, Sailendra Nath [14] (page no 52-53) and Sardesai Govind Sakaram [15] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Govind is WP:RAJ. His book was written in 1946. Which makes it outdated. Deodhar makes a small mention of Badami being captured but doesn’t mention a siege or any other details beyond that. As I’ve mentioned before, this event lacks notability, and I already pointed out many of the issues within this article. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Not convinced that this needs its own article. Only reliable source here is from Deodhar and it’s one line about it being captured, with no other extra details or information(see context above). In fact it doesn’t even mention a siege, only that the town was captured. This article lacks Wikipedia:Notability. Govinds book appears to fall under WP:RAJ which makes it an unsuitable addition for any article. The other sources don’t appear to be reliable either per noorullah. One throwaway line/passing mention of this event doesn’t warrant a separate article.

Edit: I’m beginning to think that WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is at play here. How did the user who wrote this article get all this information from one line in Deodhars book? I don’t see how he got the numbers in the info box, nor how he managed to fill an entire article based on a throwaway line. Non of the information in the body for example seem to directly relate to the capture of Badami. There’s no mention of any of that in regards to Deodhars book. So again, there’s barely any information about the CAPTURE(not siege) of Badami in the sources provided. Most of this article employs original research and synth. Even the title is OR, there was no battle. Majority of the information here is falsified. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Capture/Siege of Badami is given significant coverage in these two sources [16] (page no- 53-54), [17] (page no- 178-179). This source mentions this conflict as Siege of Badami in the page number 52 [18].

WP:RAJ doesn't apply to Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book because it only applies to caste related stuff. Hence Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book is a WP:RS, Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay. And All of the sources pass WP:RS, Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable? GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 14:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you’d assume that it only applies to caste related topics but that’s not the case. This has been discussed many times in the past especially on RSN, but typically, all sources that fall under the raj era are not seen as reliable. While the essay written by sitush focuses on caste, most of the same issues mentioned there apply to all raj era historians.

And btw, Govind was already picked apart in RSN for the same reasons I mentioned(WP:RAJ), it’s an outdated source.

“Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reliability of Govind Sakharam Sardesai

“The sources I have seen suggest that it was first published in 1928, which makes it a bit dated, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the source though. “

“I see to recall being informed that prior discussions has found any source published under the Raj was automatically not an RS”

Anything that was written during the raj era is outdated and thus not RS. Sitush can clarify this further for you if you’d like to ask him, as he’s already discussed this detail many times in the past.

“Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay”

It’s an essay written by one of the most prolific writers of Indian historical topics on Wikipedia. Sitush is a content expert. And this is something that has generally been accepted by the community. Raj era sources are typically almost always viable for removal.

Furthermore, the point of the essay was to let the readers know that RAJ era sources are unreliable and outdated. So even if this isn’t a policy(which is irrelevant, this issue was discussed multiple times), WP:RS still exists. We are looking for high quality sources on wikipedia, not outdated work from the raj era. And as I’ve clarified, Govinds work has already been picked apart by RSN.

“Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable”

well I should clarify what I actually meant. look at this source for example https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69209/page/n56/mode/1up

it actually doesn’t seem unreliable based on what I’ve read, so this source is fine but where is the siege of Badami mentioned? I can’t find the quote in the page numbers cited. It seems that this was likely mistakenly added in. So we can’t use this source for information it doesn’t even have. Now as for the final source

https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.7298/mode/1up

There is no page number cited so I can’t even find where it mentions Badami. Furthermore I can’t find any info about the authors credentials, but even if he was reliable, where has he written about the the siege of Badami?

it seems to me that out of all these sources, only one of them mentions anything about Badami. Not that there was a siege mind you. Deodhar makes a passing mention of the town being captured and that’s it. There is no other details. So again, why is this a separate article? After checking all the sources, I realized this article is far more problematic than initially anticipated. The text doesn’t even correspond with what’s written in the sources cited. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment by one of our more experienced editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khasdour

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

I searched Google Scholar but I could not find any reliable sources Chidgk1 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Armenia, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Algami Canal

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

I can only find unreliable sources for this but as there are so many editors interested in military history I put it for discussion as you may know better Chidgk1 (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akçakoca Poyraz G.S.K.

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

As far as I can tell they are not notable - even the link from the article to their own website does not work Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1975 in Turkish television

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

Uncited and already covered in Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four strategic communications firms

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

The ONLY news source for this article is the Wikipedia article indexed on Google. WP:BEFORE check shows nothing for this particular term to describe these communication firms (which in themselves appear notable). However, this title of "big four" applies only to the big four accounting firms. The first fence of this article contends "Similar to the "Big Four" accounting firms and the "Magic Circle" law firms, a group of elite corporate advisory and public relations firms has emerged as the global leaders and go-to advisors for major corporations". There is no source for this, and it appears to be the primary indicator of importance for the subject. Most of the article is unsourced, and I cannot find anything to back up any significant claim made. I also cannot find any source referring to these firms in this way. The term appears made up or unsubstantiated - I feel this almost but not quite qualifies for Speedy Delete criteria A11... — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Advertising, Companies, and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable based on sources and concept/term itself is WP:OR Chaste Krassley (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Sathyaraj

AfDs for this article:

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

Biographical article about a person lacking in notability

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 6 is solid, I found this as well [19] confirming her role a a nutritionist. With the other sources, it seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sundus Global

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

Does not meet NCORP, created be one editor with few edits elsewhere and deprodded without any explanation. WP:BEFORE check shows little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SPA creation, fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brain rot

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

This article shouldn't be here because it is not a dictionary. See WP:NOTDICT AutorisedUser673 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AutorisedUser673 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esraa Owis

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vahid Johari

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evelina Bertoli

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie (dog)

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

Not inherently notable, happy to merge with Steve Darling. Bringing to AFD as I'm not sure if I'm missing something that makes this notable enough for it's own article. Lordseriouspig 07:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources aren't discussing Jennie independently from Steve Darling. There's not much to merge either, since the main points are already covered in that article. hinnk (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Not independently notable from Steve Darling. Reywas92^Talk 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article creator- I'm not strongly opposed to a merge but I created a separate article because the level of sustained media coverage over time is indicative of independent notability, e.g. this Sky News segment from two days ago in which she was the primary focus- most media focus is very much primarily focused on Jennie, rather than primarily focused on Steve Darling and discussing her only as an aside. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Soto

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this previously unreferenced article about an artist, and added two references. I cannot see significant coverage of him, however, and do not think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. His own website is down. Tacyarg (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV and sections are unsourced. Xegma(talk) 17:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milind Godbole

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

Non-notable CEO of a company, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV,sources are just passing mentions of the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HN R200

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

Very small company that only produced three examples of a car. No evidence of significant notability, not everything belongs on Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG, although I don't speak Czech and can't speak to the quality of the multiple sources in the article. In some cases, a car like this would be covered in the article for its manufacturer instead of having a separate one, but Hoffmann & Novague does not have an article. It's unclear if the three examples that were built by 2019 are all that will be made, or if production continued beyond that point. --Sable232 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acronical place

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

Obscure astrology term, WP:NOTDICT. Two of the three references are on the word "acronical", one of which is a blog. Un assiolo (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can we just have a Glossary of astrology or something? You can't say a lot about a lot of these things but the terms themselves are discussed and it would be helpful for trying to sort out what is what in the sea of new age nonsense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a Glossary of astrology now. Do you want this article Redirected or Merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shekar Natarajan

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

Promo article. Fails WP:BIO. Refs are mostly interviews and profiles. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is so many citations on his work in this article and he is well known in the world of Supply Chain. 75.149.50.222 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=M1dROmoAAAAJ&hl=en 75.149.50.222 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address the concerns regarding the notability and reliability of the references in this article.

Notability and Achievements:

Shekar Natarajan is a recognized expert in the field of supply chain management. His contributions to the industry have been significant, as evidenced by his receipt of the Medallion Award from the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE) in 2010, which is awarded for notable contributions to the field. It was awarded to only 10 people over the last decade. This award recognizes individuals that have made a notable impact on the industrial engineering profession. The full list of awardees, including Mr. Natarajan, can be viewed here - https://www.iise.org/awards.aspx?id=10802.

Reliable Sources:

In addition to the IISE recognition, Mr. Natarajan has been acknowledged by various reputable industry sources. For example, Material Handling and Logistics News has recognized him as an expert in supply chain logistics. More details about his work and expertise can be found in their coverage here - https://www.mhlnews.com/shekar-natarajan-expert.

Given these points, I believe Mr. Natarajan's notability is well-established within his field, supported by reliable third-party sources.

Thank you for considering these points. 75.149.50.222 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shekar Natarajan has received several prestigious awards and recognitions throughout his career, acknowledging his significant contributions to the supply chain and logistics industry.* Medallion Award (2010): Awarded by the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE), recognizing his contributions to the field of industrial engineering and systems.

DC Velocity Rainmaker (Year): Named as one of the "Rainmakers" by DC Velocity magazine, which highlights professionals who have made substantial impacts in the logistics and supply chain field. Source.
Consumer Goods Visionary (2010): Recognized as a visionary by Consumer Goods magazine for his forward-thinking strategies in the consumer goods industry. Source.Given the multiple awards and recognitions that Shekar Natarajan has received, it is clear that he has made a noteworthy impact in his industry. Deleting this article would mean removing valuable information about a recognized leader in supply chain management, whose work continues to influence the field. This article serves as a credible and informative resource for those interested in learning about influential figures in the industry.

2601:644:9385:FB0:542B:A7A2:4997:3559 (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion needs to see more participation. Looking at the comments thus far, it seems like this subject might have won some prestigious industry awards. Notable awards go beyond the Oscars and Nobels, by the way. A source review would also be helpful here as this is a heavily referenced article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are corporate awards and are non-notable here. scope_creep^Talk 10:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Karatedo Shito-Ryu International Renshikan

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

Non-notable martial arts organization. The only two sources are from the subject's website. Good faith google search can't seem to give any independent or significant coverage from reliable sources. Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Martial arts, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V The Serial

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 07:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vikas Gupta#Television -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Silver Eagle mintage figures

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTSTATS. It is not clear why we have these statistics. Not all facts make good encyclopedia articles, no attempt is made to explain why these figures are of enough importance to give them a separate page. Fram (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is cite-able and notable as world bullion repository currency. -MJ (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into American Silver Eagle - This article was WP:BOLDly split without discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hannan (singer)

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

I nominate this article to debate whether to keep it or eliminate it, due to a transfer to the draft, for my opinion the article maintains relevance and a large number of independent sources that prove its notoriety, if improvements need to be made, they can also be made. In addition, the singer has participated in a very concert With extensive media impact in Pakistan, in 2023, Hannan appears on the list of the most played artists on music platforms. Alon9393 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 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 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Recreating a BLP shortly after it was Draftified is not only unjustified but also goes against P&Gs. And then, nominating one's own creation for deletion and seeking input from others is a misuse of the AfD process. This is not how AfD is supposed to work. Ideally, this AFD should be procedurally closed. But fwiw, the subject fails to meets the WP:NSINGER as well GNG, so this BLP should either be deleted or at the very least, draftify for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan

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

No sources that discuss this book, merely listings. This incomplete hit on Google Books says... something about the book but I can't tell if it's any longer than a sentence. No sigcov. The past AfD was closed as keep because standards were different in 2006, the author being notable does not help. Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi? The one hiccup is this was initially published not in English, but I cannot figure out what title, so I could not search to see if there were sources in its native language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi unless notability can be demonstrated with Urdu sources. Interestingly the Urdu wikipedia article on Maududi doesnt list this work in the list of works by him, so I wonder if it's an english-language editorial collection of translated essays and articles rather than a single work by him. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Islamic Law and Constitution, rewrite and keep. This book has been translated into English from a language not written in Roman script, so a search in English alone will not suffice for BEFORE. We need to know how to transliterate the title into the original script before we can dispute its notability. This seems to be a reprint of part of, and chapter 2 ("The Islamic Law: Its Introduction in Pakistan") of, a book called [The] Islamic Law and Constitution [20]. This book (see another edition, which may or may not have the chapter: [21]) seems to have a lot of citations (80+ in GScholar), and numerous editions, reprints and translations, and reviews in English [22] and other commentary in English (see eg Google Books). His best known book: [23]. There is also a section "Some Opinions about the First Edition" in a section "Islamic Law and Constitution" [24] which quotes book reviews (1) from J.N.D. Anderson in "International Affairs", London (which is here) (2) from "The Dawn", Karachi (3) from "The Hindustan Times", Dehli and (4) from "The Hindu", Madras. Seems to satisfy TBK, GNG and criteria 1 and (judging from the article on the author) criteria 5 of NBOOK. [We should also have an article on the bibliography of islamic law: see [25] and numerous periodical articles.] James500 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 This is not a reprint - you can find copies of both books online, they have a completely different table of contents and contents. It is not the one chapter of that book, it is a full other book with entirely different contents. I oppose any move because from looking at it it appears to be an entirely different book.

Per Mccapra above I think this is just a translated collection of individual essays with no direct Urdu equivalent. It has nothing to do with the other book. If someone wants to write an article on that book then they can but this is not the same thing. This one has 0 sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, at least some of the text of the 1960 English translation of "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" appears to be taken verbatim from chapter 2 of the 1955 English translation of "Islamic Law and Constitution". To me, the 1960 book looks like a rehash of part of the 1955 book. There are bibliographic sources that say that the books "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" and a number of other apparently derivative books (such as "Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State" and "First Principles of the Islamic State") are "A Part of Islamic Law and Constitution": [26]. James500 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 There are plenty of edited collections that have content similarities with one another, with single chapters/essays being duplicated. Just because a work of one author is included in two collections does not make them the same collection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalalabad Cantonment English School And College

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

The cited sources are two press releases (Sylheter Dak and Daily Jalalabad), a list of the ~60 schools operated by the army, a job posting, and the school website. Searches in English and Bengali found a few primary source breaking news stories, generally of the form "so-and-so, a student at Jalalabad Cantonment English School and College",[27] but no independent, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the school itself. Therefore does not meet WP:NSCHOOL and should not be a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce Seriously? No independent sources or secondary containing significant coverage? Look again and see the citations and what should i attempt to do. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom; it is a well-reasoned and convincing argument.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The 4th edit to this article was this nomination for deletion and since then, there has been a lot of editing to it. It might be helpful to review the article again and see if useful sources have been added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Paul

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. No awards or recognition. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. Sources provided merely confirm where she has exhibited and not SIGCOV. This source seems to be the only indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, South Africa, and Greece. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some additional WP:RS coverage of Paul: Frieze magazine, The Design Edit, Vice (referenced in the article but needs to be archived), StudioInternational (referenced above)

CaptainAngus (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are several articles in art magazines about her work and its significance. I added one today that I found. I think she meets criteria 2, 3, and 4d of WP:Artist. Nnev66 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Root

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

Despite having nine books to his name, I can't find evidence that any of them pass WP:NBOOK, and thus I don't think this is a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. I checked Kirkus, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly, plus some general searches for his name and some book titles, and only found four total reviews (one each for four books). I didn't find biographical coverage for WP:NBIO either. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Hershcovich

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

I cannot find independent sources with significant coverage suitable to meet WP:NBASIC, and I cannot find evidence to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPROF. I have looked under both the article name and "Arie Hershkowitz", the name given on the CV in reference 1. Mgp28 (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Israel. Mgp28 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His name is אריה הרשקוביץ. Most of his research is under Arie Herscovici, with other sources under Arie Hershcovich and Arie Hershkowitz. אריה has many spellings as well but hopefully that part is more consistent for this Arie. gidonb (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. Using "Arie Herscovici" I'm still not seeing enough independent coverage to make me think the article meets the appropriate notability criteria. An attempt at using his name in Hebrew with Google Translate seemed to bring up news stories about people with the same name who are not him, but I will be interested to know if there are sources in Hebrew that show notability. Mgp28 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are fairly common. Hershkowitz is the status quo name in English, French, and German. Herșcovici is the Romanian spelling. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of King Kong amusement park attractions

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

Per WP:LISTN, this isn't a notable enough subject to have a list article about. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Amusement parks. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this doesn't meet WP:NLIST, perhaps this can be converted back into a disambiguation page, as was the case before 2010. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough entries with links their own articles, to make it a valid navigational list. List articles are more useful than categories since they allow more information, helping people find what they want easier. Perhaps make an article with all the entries from Category:Amusement rides based on film franchises, and merge this one to it. Dream Focus 01:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if NLIST isn't met, which I am not necessarily conceding, it can survive as a navigational aid or disambiguation page, which is a perfectly fine ATD. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is too small. We should see where it can be merged. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. As a list, this article just doesn't really work due to a lack of significant coverage on this subject, but this is admittedly a useful directory page for those interested in searching about this topic. I'd support a disambiguation so it can better fulfill its purpose, as its current status just doesn't work well as a list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or disambiguate per Pokelego999. This could fit nicely at a section of King Kong, but a short navigational aid is the best way to frame this. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not notable enough, plus the list is too small. Should consider merging.

Priscilladfb16 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section on the King Kong page, preferably in prose. It's useful information, but such a short list doesn't need its own page. 22:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the article is merged, it would probably be better suited to a sub-article such as King Kong (franchise) or King Kong in popular culture. Epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep this as a list, just provide a bit more context as to the time frames when these each started and their licensing arrangements, and any relationships between them. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 22:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eulogio Tibay

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

Stub bio of an inventor sourced only to a patent. I don’t find any in depth coverage in reliable independent sources, just Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Shawn Klein

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

This is an author of three books and many short stories, but I can't find evidence that any of the books passes WP:NBOOK, with at most one RS review each. (Kirkus for And The Dead Shall Live and Sherlock Mendelson; I'm not sure about IndieReader but it's the best we get for The Money). The best claim to notability via awards appears to be two nominations (not wins) for the Pushcart Prize for two short stories. I don't think this is sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR and I haven't been able to find better sourcing for WP:NBIO. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dax Flame

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article has been created and deleted twice before. Orange sticker (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asasey Hotel attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT no lasting coverage. Cannot find any coverage of the event after July except for trivial one line mentions in articles discussing other attacks. Closest thing I could find was this: https://www.kormeeraha.com/2021/03/12/canadian-school-renamed-after-hodan-nalayeh/ but it is about a victim more than the attack.

Unfortunately hotel attacks are a common incident in Somalia and just aren't very notable. Could be merged into Hodan Nalayeh, al-Shabaab, or the Somali civil war Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Somalia. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2019 timeline of the Somali Civil War. Or redirect, it's already mentioned there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. Hotel attacks are not a common incident in Somalia just as school shootings are not in the United States, despite what is suggested from news coverage. An attack in which 25+ people are killed is not WP:ROUTINE and there was international news coverage of the attack in global RS including FT, NYT, CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, etc. More than enough coverage to establish WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH, and WP:GNG for WP:NEVENT. Longhornsg (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg But not WP:SUSTAINED which is one of the more important aspects in WP:NEVENT. There is nothing after a month. Death toll is not notability, plenty of even higher casualty attacks are not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three participants and three different outcomes proposed, the definition of No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issue with merging to the timeline article. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources brought up. @PARAKANYAA:: articles are not required to meet GNG and every applicable SNG but GNG or any applicable SNG. This doesn't have lasting consequences, but it does have plenty of coverage in reliable sources.Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 21:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Delete per replies: I'd forgotten about the whole For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources bit. — Alien333 ( what I did[reply]
why I did it wrong ) 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states sources should be secondary. All the sourcing appears to be primary sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alien333 That is not what NEVENT is. NEVENT is meant to distinguish/help to distinguish events that may suffer from WP:PRIMARYNEWS (since, initially, that's going to be all of the sources). All of the sources here are primary and therefore none contribute to GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, every single passing events that blows up in the media for two days has "plenty of coverage in reliable sources"; but we clearly don't have an article on every crime that's ever happened. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a news story. There is no long-term coverage in secondary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources found by Longhornsg are all from the time of the event. No WP:LASTING effect to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:PARAKANYAA, you have voiced other opinions here. Are you no longer arguing for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still arguing for a merge/redirect since it's part of the greater event and was discussed within that context. I do not think it is notable outside of that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just about evenly divided between editors arguing for Deletion and those would be okay with a Merge. I didn't want to relist for a third time but I'd prefer not closing this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Ciganlija

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

Mainly uncited and seemingly vandalised. Perhaps it could be merged in to create a "neighborhoods of Belgrade" article, as, seemingly after 7+ years being marked with onesource, it still remains with only one source. NeoJade ^{( Talk | Contribs )} • she/they 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. NeoJade ^{( Talk | Contribs )} • she/they 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + we need more sources. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Боки ☎ ✎ 23:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After a little more reading, I think this may not even pass WP:GNG, searching for the town has on several occasions not brought any results for me. I am still of the belief a merge with a more general "Neighborhoods of Belgrade" could be and should be the way forward as it allows this article to still exist as a redirect, therefore not affecting anything that links here, and also allows for bigger and smaller towns to be on Wikipedia as the neighborhoods are notable as a group, yet probably not individually.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can editor provide new sources that provide SIGCOV that can help substantiate a Keep argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tumor alopecia

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

There is only one source that talks about tumor alopecia and it only includes one small paragraph on the topic:

"Tumor alopecia refers to halr loss in the immediate vicinity of either benlgn or malignant tumors of the scalp. Synngomas, nerve sheath myxomas, and steatocystoma multiplex are benign tumors that may be lim~ted to the scalp and cause alopecia. Alopecia neoplastica 1s the designation glven to halr loss from metastatic tumors, most often from breast or renal carcinoma."^[1]

^ James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; Elston, Dirk M.; Odom, Richard B. (2006). Andrews' diseases of the skin: clinical dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. p. 762. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. OCLC 62736861.

The source provided is a tertiary source I believe so this doesn't have any secondary sources covering it. Also this page reads like a dictionary definition. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath, a medical school textbook (which is what's cited there) is generally considered an ideal source in MEDRS terms.

I also wonder whether you're focusing too closely on the exact name given in that one source, when the subject (i.e., hair loss in the immediate vicinity of either benign or malignant tumors of the scalp) might have other names. One of the two sources in ==Further reading== on that page talks about "neoplasm-related alopecia" and the other is about "Alopecia due to cancer". This review calls it "Hair loss in neoplastic conditions".

It would be undesirable to delete an article about a whole subject if what it really needs is to WP:MOVE it to a different title and add some more content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read over general notability guidelines and saw secondary sources and I think I may have focused too much on that. I was the one that added the further reading sources in an earlier search for some material on the topic. While the original source does distinguish tumor alopecia from Alopecia neoplastica would it be appropriate to merge the pages? I was able to expand the page Alopecia neoplastica a bit. Or possibly mention tumor alopecia on the page Alopecia and redirect there? I will search for literature regarding tumor related alopecia that’s not referred to by that name. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alopecia, or perhaps move to Cancer-related hair loss and expand further? There doesn't seem to be enough to work with here to write a standalone article, and I don't think Alopecia neoplastica and Tumor alopecia need to be separate articles, but this topic definitely warrants mentioning somewhere. I think a standalone article on cancer-related hair loss (incorporating hair loss from both the disease itself and from treatments) could work, with a mention of non-cancerous tumor-induced hair loss in the main alopecia article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like there is support here for a Merge but not agreement yet on the Merge target article. There has to be consensus on that before this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backdoor.Win32.Seed

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

non notable trojan, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolgimo

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

non notable worm, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bohmini.A

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

no non-listical credible RS found on WP:BEFORE. Seems non-notable Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Park (novel)

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

Doesn't meet NBOOK. The book is also published under the title The Thirteenth Majestral. I have not been able to find any reviews for either title through JSTOR, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, ProQuest, Newspaper Archive, or Google News. I didn't even find a book listing on ISFDB. I suggest redirecting to the the author, Hayford Peirce. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hayford Peirce. There's about a paragraph in the September 18 1994 issue of the Arizona Daily Star but it doesn't say all too much, not a "review" (just commenting on the name change and Jurassic Park stuff). There's also this which confuses me - is this giving commentary on a location in the book? I have no idea why it's namedropped. Included here but not sigcov. It was translated into Italian but I can't find any sources under the translated name either (L'impero dei dinosauri). PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:12, 29 August 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 Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper

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

Article was just created on 3 September 2024, and only because of his appearance with Tucker Carlson where he said some controversial stuff. This is a WP:BLP1E - person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. WP:NOTNEWS also applies here, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Conservatism, History, Military, Politics, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xegma(talk) 07:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just curious, is it Huffpo, Haaretz, or TNR that you think is a subpar source?~~ Googleguy007 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xegma, we are more interested in what the sources say than in your opinion of the subject as a person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All three. None of those three sources directly and explicitly state that Cooper is a "Nazi apologist". Please see WP:HEADLINES - News headlines are not a reliable source. So since they fail to verify a contentious claim about a BLP, that makes them subpar. Those eight citations in the lead sentence are a classic example of WP:REFBOMB. For a BLP, Wikipedia prefers high-quality sources that actually verify the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz? You're using a clear biased source on the subject. Watch the interview - nothing you have written is even remotely true. It's just more ADL nonsense against someone who is merely questioning the narrative. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's "ADL nonsense"? AusLondonder (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree, but I apologize for the immature and unprofessional way I acted in the above comment, I should have been better than that Googleguy007 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic BLP1E. You don't meet notability requirements on Wikipedia by appearing on a podcast. Not do you meet notability requirements by making abundantly false and disgusting comments. AusLondonder (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, "false" and "disgusting" according to whom? Questioning the narrative is neither of those. Everything Cooper discussed was referenced from various sources and this can be seen in his Substack. Truths you don't like doesn't make them false or disgusting. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do follower counts impact notability? I'd say so, but I'm unsure of Wikipedia's policy. Has 260k on Twitter (https://twitter.com/martyrmade) 111k on Substack (https://substack.com/@martyrmade). Not a fan of some of his comments but the deletion seems biased. Cosmokiwi (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion Cosmokiwi (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't assign notability based on social media followers alone. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either."

Indeed, sir. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the views that Cooper has expressed regarding the Holocaust and Hitler are "truths" you shouldn't be editing an encyclopaedia. See WP:NONAZIS. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What are the "sub-par sources"? See WP:RSPADL. I think most people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the ADL. When I nominated the article there were eight citations in the lead sentence that I considered sub-par, they have since been removed. And people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable, only if they meet the criteria outlined in our policies and guidelines for notability. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamilu Ja'afaru

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

As far as I can tell, this is a minor government official. The only sources with significant coverage I could find online were written by the subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Džundev

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

Diplomat, so not automatically notable. Tagged for notability for 9 years (which is how I found it). I can't find any sources but primary or non-significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it's not expanded nor added sources. Xegma(talk) 03:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 google news hits is not enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diplomats, including ambassadors, are not inherently notable and must meet WP:BASIC. There's no evidence this subject does. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 5 September 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 speedy keep. The nomination was the 16th edit done by the user, who should familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia community before nominating long-standing articles for deletion, and in doing so, evoking the behaviour of previous users with similar nominations. There is no need to entertain a discussion on such flimsy grounds as is presented here. For a characater known worldwide for decades, WP:SNOW comes to mind if you need another reason. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bean (character)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Doing A WP:BEFORE Turned up nothing about the character in capacity, heck Most of the Information Is About the show, Not the character. SuperWoodyMan (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SuperWoodyMan (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The character is the show, and the show is all about the character. Not sure what you mean, but the whole article is about the character. And if you click on any of the "Find sources", you will discover a lot more. — Maile (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hans Kayser

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

Completely unreferenced since creation and tagging in 2016. Fails WP:GNG. Sources I found were about a different Hans Kayser (b Buchau, Württemberg, April 1, 1891; d Bolligen, nr Berne, April 14, 1964) who was an academic and writer. 4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 04:06, 5 September 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 speedy keep‎. See other AFDs by this editor for rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Peanut

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

Non-notable advertising character which can easily be redirected to the product or organization. SuperWoodyMan (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SuperWoodyMan (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are quite enough sources in the article, including this New York Times article and this Adweek article, as well as the books What a Character! 20th Century American Advertising Icons and A Century of American Icons: 100 Products and Slogans from the 20th Century Consumer Culture. An obviously notable advertising character. Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This was the 11th edit of the user, who should familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia community before nominating long-standing articles for deletion. Actually, this behaviour reminds me strongly of Babybunny2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Geschichte (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is definitely Babybunny2007. What grievance they have with advertising mascots is unknown. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI am not sure this fits the WP:SKCRIT so I did not vote speedy, but it is a keep. Bruxton (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be SKCRIT number 2 in my opinion. Geschichte (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - See closed AFD for Mr. Bean (character) above. Same nominator. — Maile (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeremy Curl

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeremy curl

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Photography, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes mostly the sections are unsourced. Xegma(talk) 03:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Situation (A Little Sound and Sugababes song)

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}}.

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

Fails WP:NSONG, the sources provided is either Primary, questionable for reliability (correct me if I am wrong), and the Guardian one ~~is just a Passing Mention.~~ does not even mention the song and the sources added are not even related to the subject Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage in sources, samples a very popular song and has been in the charts this week. Speedy close. 2A00:23EE:1620:6BEF:253A:B21:2730:AF6 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly provide any WP:SECONDARY and non-WP:TRIVIAL sources you find? Also just because it is popular does not mean it is good for wikipedia see WP:ITSPOPULAR Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] This is secondary sourcing.2A00:23EE:1690:1BCF:9993:F508:FDB6:6A37 (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anymore? per WP:SIGCOV Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unsure as why this has been nominated. Well sourced and structured and passes WP:NSONG from what I can see. 90.192.76.192 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with the previous respondents. This article is significant to the chronology of singles released by the Sugababes, documents current trends in the pertinent genres, and is likely to receive further media coverage. In my view, it would be infeasible to include the contents of this article to a satisfying extent within a different one. PerfidiousSnatch (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against Draftify it for the moment per WP:TOOSOON. As of now, there is no reliable sources I could find to determine it's notability. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PerfidiousSnatch: also, just because it is important for chronology does not mean it is good for wikipedia per WP:ITSIMPORTANT, I author 3 songs articles by now. And I really want to add some but it lacks WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either A Little Sound or Overload (Sugababes song). All references provided are either WP:PRIMARY or WP:TRIVIAL and I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. I took the Guardian source mentioned by the nominator out as it does not mention "Situation", only "Overload". It doesn't matter that this might get more coverage - I might win the lottery tomorrow!--Laun chba ller 07:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I though I read it lmfao, this is even worst. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Skiddle and the Guardian sources predate A Little Sound releasing anything. They can't possibly back up anything about the song. (I already took them out once and was reverted.)--Laun chba ller 11:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the reason why I tag this for AfD, those articles was release way way before it is was release of the song Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, could do with some better sourcing but happy to work on this if necessary. Should Keep failing as an option, I'm okay with redirecting to one of the above articles aforementioned by Launchballer, but it should be one or the other and not necessarily both. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above Pragnell1957 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourcing has not improved since the last AFD (soft deleted) and I was unable to locate any additional good sources online. The subject fails GNG and NCORP. Justi yaya 02:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. Justi yaya 02:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Engineering, Transportation, Turkey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Up! to Canada Tour

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

Abdul has announced the tour has been cancelled. [28]Pillowdelight (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate section in the artists "History" section. An announced and subsequently cancelled tour will likely still be worth a mention there, making it a plausible search term. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela (novel)

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

I have been unable to find enough sources to establish notability via NBOOK. At present, the article relies on several primary sources, though I added a single review of the series (Aussie Reviews). I've searched the usual book review sources (Google, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and Google Scholar) to no avail. I suggest redirecting to the author. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book gave me what feels like an absurd amount of false positives, but I was able to find two paragraphs of coverage in The Age. I feel this is a bit too short though, and I'm not sure if Aussie Reviews is a blog or not. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. False positives is right. I hoped the author might link some press on his website, but he doesn't, though he does have a set of teaching notes ([29]). This suggests to me that plenty of Australian children might have been familiar with this book through school, but that it isn't that likely to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. The book was published in the 1990s, so there might be some coverage of it hiding in the digitization gap. The three books in this series are probably best dealt with in a single article, but since that doesn't exist, a redirect seems good for now. -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Fly, Miranda (1999-02-23). "Angela". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05.
  The review provides 133 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A warm welcome to the condescension-free zone that is the final chapter in Brisbane-based author James Moloney's trilogy, which began with the award-winning Dougy and Gracey. Moloney has tackled one of the toughest topics facing contemporary Australian society _ the vexing issue of reconciliation _ and has done so in a way that appeals to young readers without talking down to them. The characters are so real you can almost touch them, their turbulent emotions so fully realised you can't help but be moved. ..."
2. On, Thuy (1998-12-19). "Wise owls: These stories are not afraid to tackle the big themes". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review provides 135 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Unlike the three other books, Angela is ostensibly written for older readers its protagonists have already graduated from secondary school and are now undergoing the familiar rites of passage to adulthood. However, starting uni, finding part-time work and falling in love are all incidental to the narrative because the novel is more interested in exploririg issues of black and white, literally and figuratively. With scrupulous care, James Moloney measures the tidal waves of emotion that wash over the friendship between Gracey and Angela. When Gracey becomes involved in the indigen- ous students' support group and starts internalising books called The European Invasion of Australia, the close relationship between the two starts to chafe, particularly when white-bread Angela discovers her family's complicity in the "stolen generations". Moloney manages to tread the socio-political minefield with admirable sensitivity."
3. Briggs, Anne (November 1998). "Gracey's story completed". Magpies. Vol. 13, no. 5. p. 40. ISSN 0817-0088. EBSCOhost 1295871.
  The abstract notes: "Reviews the book, 'Angela,' by James Moloney." I do not have access to the review.
4. Hanzl, Anne (February 1999). "Older Readers". Reading Time. Vol. 43, no. 1. p. 31. ISSN 0155-218X. EBSCOhost 1643185.
  The abstract notes: "Reviews the book 'Angela,' by James Moloney." I do not have access to the review.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Angela to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds, Cunard! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of alcopops

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

Mostly-unsourced list of different "alcopop" products (only cited reference is an Illinois assembly bill from 1977, decades before most of these products were introduced). The list is therefore mostly WP:OR. There is an Alcopops category, which makes this list article redundant as well. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westwind Children's Services

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

No references other than their own (defunct) website.

The article is on a now-defunct company that operated charter schools in Arizona. There are two articles on schools; I don't see Westwind Preparatory Academy as a reasonable redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Arizona. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this article, and aside from a reference and a short description, it has remained untouched since. Our standards on articles around schools when I was making lots of articles on schools in 2011 were pretty low, and they are very much not in the year 2024. I just PRODded Canyon View. Let search take people to Westwind Prep, whose basketball program (and associated alumni and controversy) is the sole source of notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and West Bengal. C F A 💬 16:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should fall under WP:G4 as the last AFD on this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election) was barely a few weeks ago, and the page is effectively identical, in terms of sourcing. I have tagged it for CSD instead. Soni (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 7 days without that G4, and an IP has already added sources definitely talking about the 2026 elections. Now I support Keeping the article because of said sources Soni (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Never transcluded
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is the 1st relisting as the previous comment just indicated that the AFD discussion had never been transcluded. Right now though, no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 2024 Lok Sabha elections has completed and the recent events with parties' performance can be added, which leads speculations for 2026 election development. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potech

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

As far as I can see, does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, no sources talking about the company independently and seems to be pure advertising. Moved to mainspace too early without review. Also suffers from WP:OVERCITE and WP:SOLUTION - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Cyprus. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above I can see it's an paid contribution and trying to promote the company. Xegma(talk) 04:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith thanks for opening this conversation. Potech is a very notable cybersecurity company but considering the discretion needed around its services, it is rarely mentioned publicly through lengthy articles. That's why I've been facing difficulties finding references sources as such. I also tried to keep the text as short as possible to avoid having it look like an advertisement.

When I tried to submit it for review, I followed my mentor instructions to change the page title (from my username to Potech) and I moved it to mainspace too early without knowing... Is there any way you could support? TechPaths (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about moving it to mainspace "too early". Now that it's the subject of a deletion discussion, we're more interested in the sources that exist about the topic than the present state of the article. Unfortunately, if it's rarely mentioned publicly, that's a strong indication that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some changes that might help, using the existing references. If you have any suggestion, I'd be grateful. TechPaths (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your new edits have in fact made it worse, you've re-added external links to the article body which is not allowed. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has a different meaning on Wikipedia. Notability is not 'important' or 'influential' or 'successful'. It's 'the extent to which something has been the topic of media coverage' the extent to which it has been noted.

As you note, "it is rarely mentioned publicly through lengthy articles", if that is the case, unfortunately it does not pass the notability requirement and cannot have a Wikipedia article - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Ackroyd, Stephen (30 August 2024). "A Little Sound: I honestly didn't think this summer could top last year's". Read Dork. Retrieved 31 August 2024.

[n378-1] James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; Elston, Dirk M.; Odom, Richard B. (2006). Andrews' diseases of the skin: clinical dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. p. 762. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. OCLC 62736861.

[dork-2] Ackroyd, Stephen (30 August 2024). "A Little Sound: I honestly didn't think this summer could top last year's". Read Dork. Retrieved 31 August 2024.

[1]

[1]