Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 13	December 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Jaden McNeil

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

I can't actually see a reason that McNeil is notable himself. Yes, there are a load of sources mentioning the unpleasant comments that he comes out with, but he simply seems to be someone who has tagged along with other unpleasant characters, and has been noted as such by reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conspiracy theories, and Discrimination. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says in the Wikipedia guidelines if there's reliable sources about an individual, that's what determined notability. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another in a long line of far-right nobodies who is only recognized for having a beef with another far-right personality. Does not satisfy WP:N, definitely does not satisfy WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's been very little discussion of specific sources, so I've gone ahead and started by making a source assessment table based on sources in the article:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Kansas City Star	This is a WP:INDEPENDENT WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	This is a reliable WP:NEWSORG	The source is principally about the article subject.	✔ Yes
The Manhattan Mercury	This is an independent daily mainstream newspaper doing its own reporting.	This is a 140-year-old well-established daily newspaper; WP:NEWSORG.	This source is directly covering the article subject in a substantial way, with the whole source principally focused on the article subject.	✔ Yes
Anti-defamation league	? Moot as not SIGCOV	? Moot as not SIGCOV	He gets name-dropped once, but that's about all the coverage he gets.	✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 1	Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.	why not?	? deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM.	✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 2	Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.	Why not?	deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM.	✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 1	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	This coverage is principally about McNeil.	✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 2	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	McNeil is not so much as mentioned by name once.	✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 3	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	? There's plenty of coverage of McNeil and Dickerman as a sort of group, but little of McNeil alone. In any case, going to be moot as WP:N notes that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, and we already have a contributing SPLC source above.	? Unknown
The Kansas City Star 2	Independent WP:NEWSORG	A WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	Seems to give substantial coverage to McNeil and his activities.	✔ Yes
The Daily Dot's "God" blog	Sure?	While WP:DAILYDOT is MREL, but looking more broadly at the God blog archives this looks like an opinionated blog that's just hosted on the platfom.	? Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions.	✘ No
BroBible	Sure?	~ I can't find anything in the WP:RSN archives or at WP:NPPSG, but this feel a lot like a WP:DEXERTO-level source	Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions.	~ Partial
Inside Higher Ed	Why not?	WP:NEWSORG	We've got two paragraphs about McNeil that pass the WP:100WT for independent prose, albeit barely.	✔ Yes
The Kansas City Star 3	Independent WP:NEWSORG	WP:NEWSORG	WP:NEWSORG doing their own report principally about the subject and his activities.	✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 4	This is the same url as source 6	This is the same url as source 6	This is the same url as source 6	✔ Yes
MEL Magazine	Sure?	~ RSN archives treat this as a mixed reliability source.	Three paragraphs about McNeil and his activities, passes the WP:100WT.	~ Partial
Mother Jones	Why not?	Per WP:MOTHERJONES, source is WP:GREL.	Five paragraphs are given in the article to coverage of McNeil; this is clearly SIGCOV.	✔ Yes
Vice	Why not?	~ The community doesn't have consensus regarding VICE's reliability.	Seems to provide significant secondary coverage of McNeil and his making allegations against Fuentes.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

What this reveals is that, based on solely sources in the article, McNeil has received WP:SIGCOV from at least the following sources:

The Kansas City Star: 1, 2, 3
The Manhattan Mercury: 1
Southern Poverty Law Center: 1, maybe 2
Mother Jones: 1.

This alone would easily pass WP:SIGCOV and, as there appears to be multiple events covered among these sources, this doesn't look like a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E case. The additional sources that one can google regarding the McNeil-KSU football affair really do drive home that not all of his coverage is about Nick Fuentes or storming the U.S. capitol:

McNeil-KSU football affair additional sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sports Illustrated The Manhattan Mercury Yahoo! News The Sporting News AP 1 and 2 ESPN KC Star USA Today

As such, I think we have an individual here who easily passes WP:GNG, for whom no suitable merge target exists, and I think nom's contention that this is only someone who is covered in the context of Fuentes is plainly incorrect. In light of the breadth of coverage and the deep sourcing, there is nothing reasonable to do here but to keep.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks to Red-tailed hawk for assessing the sources. Looks like GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More about the controversial things said and the fallout than about the individual, from the sources. "Streamer says things, ruffles feathers, than fades away" seems to be the extent of what we have. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. Reliable sources like ADL, the Kansas city star, the Manhatten Mercury, Southern poverty law center all cover this individual. This goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. According with Wikipedia's guidelines, Notability isn't determined on what a certain individual is notable for, but if reliable sources cover him. However if it was the opposite, well they cover his falling out with Fuentes, His views, His association with Nick Fuentes, him being held accountable by Kansas State University for an offensive joke, him getting a girlfriend, etc. I don't even know why this is a discussion. His Wikipedia page has been up for about two years with barely anyone saying anything because it's common sense this goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable, this person wasn't notable before that happened. I'd be looking for extensive coverage of them before the event, which we don't seem to have. I've done things as a student and was held accountable, that's not really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b you've might've done bad things as a student, but news sources didn't cover it. Again, Wikipedia's notability policy are if reliable sources cover something, not "this isn't something I think is news worthy or topic worthy". As for "there needs to be extensive coverage of him before the Kansas University incident", why? Why does it matter what the first news source about him said? If multiple reliable sources cover him and different incidents involving him afterwards, that goes with Wikipedia's notability policy. But here, here's a news story covering him before the Kansas University incident. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nicholas-fuentes-america-first-infighting also I saw ESPN cover Jaden McNeil too, multiple reliable sources cover this guy, I'm struggling to understand why this is a discussion. Wikipedia's guidelines is clear as day. Wikipedia's guidelines say nothing about if you think something's news worthy, but if news outlets consider it news worthy. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That incident, for what it's worth, has been turned into a academic case study. It's not just that a kid said something inflammatory, it's that the incident was nationally covered and continued to receive attention in academics even after it was out of the news (in addition to the case study, described in a Ph.D. thesis). I think that reducing this to " Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable is a gross oversimplification here that misses just how big this was—and also ignores coverage in the context of other events as well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given above and on the talk page already. Two newspapers from his area discussing him, and Mother Jones and the SPLC discussing him in the context of someone else, and for an edgy remark he made, do not make him worthy of an entire article. Swinub★ 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swinub as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, ESPN, Yahoo News, USA today, sports illustrated and other huge mainstream sources cover thie guy. It's not just two news papers. And he's not only mentioned in the context of Nick Fuentes and an edgy tweet he made in 2020, as pointed out by me in multiple examples earlier. And as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, he easily passes WP:GNG HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more. Swinub★ 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more... no, that is patently false. SPLC covers this individual applying for and receiving Paycheck Protection Program funds, and Mother Jones doesn't so much as mention that inflammatory Tweet, but does provide significant coverage of this individual. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From what I'm reading above, the firing is notable, I'm not sure the individual is. Could perhaps create an article about the incident itself. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b there's numerous reliable sources that cover different incidents regarding Jaden McNeil DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of significant coverage. Look, lots of people, but especially the bad, are famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like most of us agree it should stay DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments seem evenly divided between Delete and Keep. The existence of RS coverage is not in doubt but some editors argue that it isn't SIGCOV enough to establish notability. Editors are warned not to BLUDGEON this discussion and contest every opinion they disagree with.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudheer Dara

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

I tried to fixed the page, but i failed to fix the notability. He is an ulelected politician, fails WP:NPOL. Looking at WP:GNG, some articles including ABP News [1] looks like advertisement as it is published in Brand Wire section. Other article and citations also needs to be checked. Taabii (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Medicine, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taabi,

I edited and updated content and media sources; please check and remove that tag.

If there are any issues, please inform me.

Thank you. Narasingprasad (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taabii,

i am waiting for your reply. Narasingprasad (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narasingprasad Kindly let others comment, for a better understanding. Also, I'm not going to remove it from the Deletion Discussion, let the Admin decide. Thank You. Taabii (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India Book of Records is not a notable organisation like Limca or Guiness. Adding this can never prove Notability of any individual. Taabii (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baqi:) (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has multiple made up in one day awards for a run of the mill doctor. Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES as an unelected candidate. Also, we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is no bolded Keep but the article creator is arguing for it so I don't think this can close as a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Runner-up in an Indian state legislative election. Fails WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanticoke City, Delaware

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

Likely insignificant formerly unincorporated residential subdivision that is now a part of Seaford, Delaware. I am unable to locate the article's cited sources anywhere to verify whether it fails WP:SIGCOV or falls under WP:ROUTINE, but based on Google or Newspapers.com yielding no relevant results and the only relevant newspaper coverage that I am able to find being passing mentions, I am almost certain that this place is not notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Delaware. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly was a real "village" – the Delaware General Assembly once appointed commissioners to survey the "village known as Nanticoke City, Seaford Hundred," to consider the construction of a public road there. Passing book mentions here and here. Newspapers.com has ~170 mentions of the community in Delaware papers, e.g. [2] [3]. It seems like it was considered separate from Seaford until it was "annexed" in 1910 ([4]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with merge to Seaford, Delaware#History. The latter is terrible anyway, and given that this area is now part of the town, it makes sense to talk about it as part of Seaford's history. Mangoe (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If every unpopulated but named crossroads or housing development in the county deserves its own article just because it is noted in the GNIS, then certainly an unincorporated town that existed as a separate entity for more than 50 years and was home to a railroad stop, a natural gas plant, river docks, and hundreds of residents before being annexed into another town is notable. Deeds for these properties in Seaford still have them listed on the Sussex County Recorder of Deeds site as Nanticoke City. For example, the property at 120 N Bradford Street in Seaford is listed on the Sussex County Recorder of Deeds as #54 Nanticoke City on both the mortgage and deed in the legal description of the property. I would also add that this article already includes more information than other so called notable communities listed for the county such as Adams Crossroads, Delaware, Blanchard, Delaware, Indian Beach, Delaware, and dozens more from the county and state. Superman7515 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Superman7515: Per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." Unless Nanticoke City was an incorporated entity, Census-designated place, or had its own ZIP code, it most likely isn't notable on its own as an unincorporated subdivision. I'm not really convinced that local newspapers coverage of a storm that occurred there and deeds are anything beyond routine coverage and sufficient coverage to verify its notability.

It is more than likely that a lot of these mass-created stubs for 'unincorporated communities' should not exist, too. After having been opposed to deleting these sort of articles (I don't doubt I had created some myself some years ago), I have in the past listed some of these sort of articles for deletion, most recently here, here, and here. It is definitely possible that some if not all of those examples of communities you linked should also have their articles deleted, too. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a reasonable way out. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was clearly once a populated place from my WP:BEFORE search separate from Seaford - even referred to specifically by the state legislature in 1893. It's eligible for its own page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a reasonable solution Andre🚐 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Nazim

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

Non notable actor/ assistant director. His claim to fame is as the brother of popular actress Nazriya Nazim and brother in law of Fahadh Faasil. Does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. Jupitus Smart 21:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Jupitus Smart 21:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. While there are several sources discussing his engagement and marriage, these mainly highlight his connection as a sibling of a notable actor rather than establishing his own significance. The remaining sources are primarily interview coverages. His notability is not yet independently established.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 10:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weet-Bix cards

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

Not one independent RS is in the article. Searching only turns up trivial mentions in RS without anything usable in an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I‘m not sure what is meant by RS but I have carefully assembled the albums and card lists from my own set. What is the reason for wanting to delete this page? A lot of NZ collectors use this. Tewheke (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RS means reliable source (WP:RS). You may want to read through WP:OR and WP:NOT. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Nothing wrong with having a collection of trading cards available for all to see but unless there are significant secondary sources accompanying the content, Wikipedia is not the venue for that. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Max

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Thomas (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit David

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Party

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

This is a small, single state, third-party in the United States which has as of this nomination only contested a single election. Fails WP:NORG. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Kentucky. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign or 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky. Obviously not a real party, just a mechanism to get her on the ballot in that state since she couldn't as a Green for some reason. Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of portmanteaus

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

Several of WP policies are in question here:

"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" -- this list has many neologisms, and most entries, while intuitive in their derivation, do not or cannot have reliable sources. A good many of the links point to wiktionary, which is not a reliable source in itself.
The definition of "portmanteau" is inadequately clear. There is extensive debate here, here and here. Without a clear definition and consensus, the debate of what to include is constant.
The page is basically WP:LISTCRUFT. The list is unmanageably long with marginal added value: neologisms that are not used beyond the initial introduction, company/brand names, multiple spins on Reaganomics and Brexit, geographic locations (which has its own article with similar sourcing issues), for example.
The list is barely encyclopedic. It feels more suitable as a project for linguists (again, still debating the definition) or within a dictionary. A few examples in the parent article(s) are all that is needed to make the point for encyclopedic purposes. While many of the entries here are interesting for "so that's where the term comes from" reasons, collecting them on a single page here does not seem to meet WP's objectives, and collecting them all is not practical or possible. HalJor (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" - sources are cited, are all of them unreliable?

"The definition of "portmanteau" is inadequately clear" - it has two definitions, the usual meaning ("portmanteau word", or blend, the subject of this list and the linked article) and "portmanteau morph".

"The page is basically WP:LISTCRUFT" - if it's too long then remove any without sources.

"The list is barely encyclopedic" - Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC.

I was thinking "Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this should be deleted or redirected to the Wiktionary category, after the references that support an entry in the list are moved to the relevant Wiktionary pages", but then I saw Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words and the example there, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. Keep. Peter James (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"sources are cited, are all of them unreliable?" Quite a few are dubious. e.g. "flounder" links here which says "First recorded in 1570–80; perhaps blend of flounce and founder" (inconclusive) and here which adds "or perhaps symbolic, fl- frequently beginning words connected with swift or sudden movement". Also e.g. "sedge" references this which says "First recorded before 900; Middle English segge, Old English secg; akin to saw 1; presumably so named from its sawlike edges" which is similarly inconclusive but doesn't mention the blend. These are just the first two examples I checked in response here. HalJor (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"but then I saw Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words and the example there..." That guideline also notes "the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited" which comes back to one of the earlier points in this nomination. It is far easier to cite a reliable source for the existence of a word (and its spelling) than the definitive etymology of the word (which doesn't always exist beyond being intuitive/OR). The Q-U list is also prone to be far less dynamic than the one under debate here, raising the maintainability concern. HalJor (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "sedge" was unlikely and removed it after checking the source, that's why I added "that support an entry in the list". Maintainability is no more of a concern here than in any other article that has content added without sources. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Wiktionary already has wikt:Category:English blends (which is already linked from the Portmanteau article), a much more comprehensive list (with almost 7500 (!) entries), and actually suited to a dictionary. It's also worth noting that the current article should probably have been named "English portmanteaus" instead, since it only seems to cover those, but that's beside the point now. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICT is as valid here as for List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the example in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more valid here because this is a bare list without any encyclopedic content...any such background content can and already does exist at the main article on blend words, rendering this unnecessary. As already pointed out, the Wiktionary category already contains ~7500 entries (and that doesn't include all the company names and stuff), rendering this pretty unmanageable. It's also got generally ambiguous inclusion criteria, since what constitutes a blend word is somewhat subjective. The comparison between the two cases isn't particularly appropriate, which is why articles should be judged on their own merits. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The definition of "portmanteau" seems WP:OBVIOUS to me, but any confusion can be cleared up here by Merriem-Webster. Portmanteaus and blends are synonymous terms. Also, with 871,806 pageviews and 252 daily views, the article has to be providing some kind of value that merits inclusion. Enix150 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For something with an "obvious" definition, there are countless edge cases, along with plenty of words with uncertain/theoretical etymologies. See also WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:POPULARPAGE as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an interesting essay, but in no way does it define official policy or guidelines. As I was saying before, most of these "uncertain/theoretical etymologies" appear to be quite WP:OBVIOUS to the average English-speaking reader. Enix150 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Powerking

AfDs for this article:

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

Already soft deleted once in 2012 (not eligible for G4), the only non-primary source that is given this time is [5] which is far from being in-depth. With a WP:BEFORE, the only additional source I found is [6], of which I'm not sure of the reliability. Not very optimistic for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finland, Netherlands, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is certainly a well-known product in Northern Europe, but I was not able to find significant coverage of it online. Only sales sites and forum discussions. Something might be buried somewhere, maybe in trade press. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Mewah National Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - Tbh I would usually be starting at delete on this one and trying to disprove my assumption, but this is one of multiple nominations all nominated within minutes of each other without any evidence of a deletion rationale or a WP:BEFORE. Looking at the others, many seem fairly obvious keeps with minimal searching. Searching takes a lot of time, and I don't see the case is made that this time be spent. I think we should procedurally keep this one, without prejudice against a renomination by anyone (without the usual six month stand off) who has spent sufficient time looking at the issue to write a fuller deletion rationale. Or just close it as no consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not qualify for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are only three sources that mention this school and all of them are simply made in passing[7][8][9]. There's no WP:SIGCOV that would justify this article's existence. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no references and fails to meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. 1keyhole (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues of notability, among others, has been tagging for years with unimprovement. This school may have the largest count of students in its state by a 2022 data. A search of "bukit mewah" AND "school OR sekolah OR smk" on Google did not provide any relevant news. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ong Kai Jin, boolean search doesn't work on google, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't work on google news, either. -- asilvering (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if it did, "school OR sekolah OR smk" is searching for that exact string and not boolean operators. Not surprising that showed nothing. Also to note, this !vote is by the nominator. Nominators vote is assumed and need not be stated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It worked and for both. What I meant was that the results of news were unrelatable. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - News: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Arguably WP:MILL but if you are not finding this stuff you are not searching properly. It gets two full pages in the book Improving Schools (2014).[14] However that appears to be self published. Despite being self published, the two pages refer to a published newspaper letter in the Star and as we haven't yet found that, searches are clearly not gathering all the information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I helped you, that turned out to be a self-submitted article. [15] I then assume it is a book of compilation of own submission. For your information, The Star often excluded from Google's news tab search results because they usually locks old articles. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not just WP:MILL, individual achievements are not inclusive of article per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A search of "bukit mewah" school OR sekolah OR smk site:thestar.com.my OR site:nst.com.my on Google should work the best or a search of "smk bukit mewah" OR "bukit mewah secondary" site:thestar.com.my OR site:nst.com.my on Google should be more precise. Still, individual interviews, individual achievements and that person's own submission. I do not think a news on a debate national-champion is enough. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a fair amount of sources to argue GNG is met, just over the line, met which for schools, is enough per WP:NSCHOOL. And as Sirfurboy pointed out, this was part of a "barrage" of nominations with no rationale outside of "Fails WP:NSCHOOL." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 and non exhaustively many m o r e. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oceanian under-23 bests in athletics

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

This isn't an official list kept by Oceania Athletics Association and appears to be full of original research. Plus, the tables are incomplete. Besides the senior ranks, World Athletics or continental governing bodies typically only keep an official U20 World Record list ("junior") and a U18 World Best list ("youth"). Having record lists that are incomplete and not official seems like a poor choice. I am not nominating the Europe U23 list and South America U23 list for deletion as these have official records kept by European Athletics Association and Atletismo Sudamericano. It's definitely a lot of work to put lists like this together, so I suggest that whoever made this article save a copy in the event this and the articles below get deleted. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above (i.e: unofficial list, original research, incomplete tables):

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 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 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see two different rationales for deletion; that these are original research, and that there isn't coverage of this type of world record. The continental lists are also incomplete. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the World list, it's officially maintained by Athletics Weekly here: "World Under 23 Best Performances" That list is outdated, but GBR Athletics was acquired by Athletics Weekly a few years ago and their records went under the AW paywall, so I think that's where the most recent list would be. World Athletics also makes references to "world under-23 bests" in their writing e.g. [16] [17] [18] [19] "Kirdyapkina, the wife of Sergey the reigning and two-time World 50km champion, was rewarded with a World U23 best", so I think they must maintain or reference some authoritative list otherwise it wouldn't make sense to refer to times that way. --Habst (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval on the newly found ones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamna Pathak

AfDs for this article:

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

Looking at the sources, it does not pass WP:GNG even. Mostly all the sources available on google are discussing her replacement in a notable show, see [20], [21], [22]. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Entertainment, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast: as the nominator indicates she is best known for that role and coverage attesting of that exists. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast. Not opposed to Delete. RangersRus (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The actress has worked in multiple notable TV shows, a primary Google search results indicate significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28 Thanks for your comment, for a better understanding i appreciate you to please present those RS here? Happy editing. Taabii (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few sources and updated the article, I will try to improve to the article in my free time.

Zuck28 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott Most of the sources are Interviews, kindly check it. — Taabii (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are quite poor and not independent of the subject with claims and interviews. Subject fails the criteria for WP:NACTOR who did not have significant roles in "multiple" notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are reliable, and the subject is well-researched with verifiable claims.

𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion on the sources added. Keep !votes, kindly comment based on our P&Gs and after giving a detailed analysis of the sources based on those P&Gs with a clear rationale why the article should be kept, not mere statements saying the sources are good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavishya Malika Puran

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

I propose taking action on the article "Bhavishya Malika Puran" as it solely presents propaganda spread by news channels for financial gain. Context: The article is highly disputed, and its accuracy as a translation of the original Bhavishya Malika remains unverified. News channels have extensively covered this topic, primarily repeating the claims made by the Pandit. Unfortunately, the errors in this translated book, which appears to be motivated by financial interests, have gone unchallenged. Having carefully examined the book and its issues, I recommend one of the following actions: 1. Archive the article until credible evidence supporting its claims is provided. Or 2. Add a disclaimer to the article stating that it is a controversial issue and establish a Reception section to present a balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharavela Deva (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 7 December 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 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator didn't provide a valid reason for article deletion. However, the subject passes WP:NBOOK. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DownloadStudio

AfDs for this article:

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

"awarded by PC Magazine as the best download manager in its Utility Guide 2004". Is this enough for WP:NSOFT? I have my doubts. No other indications of notability in the article or in my BEFORE _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Download manager: The full review of the software in PC Mag can be found here, and a report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory gives a very brief description of its features (link). This level of sourcing is insufficient, but only by a hair. I could be persuaded to change my vote to Keep if someone else finds better sourcing, which I think is a real possibility. I will also note that the previous AfD contains a bunch of Keep votes that are prime examples of arguments to avoid, but one vote does suggest a decent merge target. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contact-electro-catalysis

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

Article which was previously Draft:Contact-electro-catalysis and rejected from AfD as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia by Pygos after being previously declined by Ldm1954, DMacks, CSMention269, Liance and Iwaqarhashmi. Editor created this new version directly to mainspace, circumventing prior history. Current version is a recent proposed catalysis approach from a single group which as yet has no other significant coverage or secondary sources, so WP:TOOSOON. As previously pointed out by Pygos there is probably also a COI. Going to AfD as it apparently does not qualify for a speedy delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON from COI. Not overtly promotional wording, but self-cited to hell and back, with general lack of independent references to demonstrate notability. To emphasize, it was rejected at AFC, and the same editor who now created in mainspace is the same as the one involved at AFC. That editor is possibly a role account and by various evidence undoubtedly involved in the research. This one is nearly the same lede, does not appear to make any new claims with substantially newer independent references to meet WP:GNG, and has even less body content than the rejected one. DMacks (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability and lack of comprehensibility, quite apart from the COI issues — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - borders on WP:MADEUP. It's only a concept? So, this is essentially one or more persons saying, "I have an idea ..." There has been only 11 page views within the last month. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 20:37, 14 December 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 keep‎. Nominator CU-blocked as a troll. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabean colonization of Africa

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

This Article has numerous inconsistencies, provides no historical backing or basis with historical events e.g, wars, vassal rulers, kings, inscriptions, etc there is no information of such an event occurring at all. In addition it provides no historical context or historical affirmation that this happened and is mainly based on 21st century consensuses and useless arguments provided in citations which talks for a totally different reason not a "colonization" at the very least a migration but this page doesn't make any favours for that. Hence this page can be seen as a probative of Pro-Yemeni nationalist propaganda or anti-Ethiopian sentiment. Once again its historical section is uses nothing actually historical and its nothing more than conflating opinions from scholars in the 21st century which have been used as fictitious references and has been deleted by me, in addition, opinions are usually on a separate section on an article and its not appropriate them in the historical subsection without any historical context. There's nothing on this page linking back to something that can indicate it happened and there's not a single shred of evidence hence why the article only uses opinions (which differentiate). Hence is a clear use of Imposter content, Wikipedia:Fictitious references a violation of Wikipedias policy. Sections of the page have already been removed due to this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apprentix (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be disingenuous here; by "Sections of the page have already been removed due to this" you mean that YOU removed those sections based on your own notions. Ravenswing 20:52, 14 December 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 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Yemen. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With 27 edits during 13-14 December (maybe more since I counted) this is as clear an example of edit warring as I have seen. Probably an administrator should step in. (I don't have the expertise to have an opinion about who is correct.) Athel cb (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – being mainly based on 21st-century consensus is not only fine by us, it is obligatory: we care about present scholarly consensus, and moreover are not qualified to dispute or downplay it. Remsense ‥ 论 20:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Based on some of the nom's statements here and at the associated ANI complaint, I'm comfortable with deeming this a bad faith nomination. Looking over the sources presented, they are themselves well-attested, and there's enough of them to disprove the notion that it's a fringe viewpoint. His readiness to sling around accusations of nationalism -- often the first recourse of rabid nationalists themselves -- is troubling, as is his obsession with the premise that history somehow doesn't count without attested monarchs or battles. That the nom doesn't like the conclusions of the numerous contemporary scholars who've held these positions so distasteful to him is evident, but his own nationalist animus doesn't equate to discrediting them. Ravenswing 20:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion: The sources cited by the author of this article do not reflect the modern academic consensus that they are trying to claim. The claims made in this article are an extrapolation of the idle conjecture of 19th and 20th century archaeologists and anthropologists (particularly Carlo Conti Rossini), as is noted when actually going through the citations themselves. Even a topical investigation of citations 1, 6, 18, and 19 by an amateur reader should demonstrate that the author is essentially grasping at straws, and making connections that don't substantively exist. How the author cited literature that supports the notion of close cultural contact between two historic people-groups along with the presence of Sabean script/temples, to then using this as a substantiation of ancient colonization is a mystery to me. Just as well, the final section using citation number 20 seems to quote a complete fabrication that cannot be found in the source text. I think this is grounds enough to believe the author did not write this article in good-faith, and that the claims given in the article cannot be substantiated either by any modern historical consensus that the author sufficiently demonstrated nor by the given citations/source texts. Ax Gagce (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Ax Gagce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "The results are consistent with the hypothesis, supported by historical and linguistic evidence, for a common origin of these groups from a Cushitic-speaking group living in eastern Africa." Hell's bells, you didn't even read the whole of the abstract, let alone the source, did you? Talk about "grasping at straws" or "making connections ... that don't exist." Ravenswing 02:02, 15 December 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.

Conquest of Ajmer

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

Yet another MILHIST article that spun more around event's background and aftermath rather than describing the event itself. Fails WP:MILNG and WP:SIGCOV as sources measly refer this particular event as a capture of Ajmer alongwith Nagaur, could not find ~~Seige~~ Siege of Ajmer in the sources. Garuda ^Talk! 16:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with your observations. The article has been in contention for deletion before too. Xoocit (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — (soft) — per nominator and above. That said, there do seem to be a number of sources listed in the “the battle” section… if someone could spin-out more information regarding the actual siege from these (or any other) I might be inclined to re-consider my position or at least rescind my “delete” position. But as-written, it’s a delete, for me.MWFwiki (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Rajasthan.
Delete: Per nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was moved from Conquest of Ajmer to Seige of Ajmer at Special:Diff/1261104784, which I would have thought the nominator would have been aware of, so the argument that the sources refer to "capture of Ajmer" and not "Seige of Ajmer" and therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILNG on that basis is not a good argument. If anything they make an argument for moving the page back to the old name or similar. Pinging @Xoocit, @MWFwiki and Ratnahastin as you may not have been aware of the page move. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Reuter Literary Archive

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

Unreferenced since 2009. My BEFORE in English and German ("Fritz Reuter Literature Archive") in GS and GB yields nothing. De wiki article has a few refs but they are not easy for me to verify, and the notability of this archive is unclear. I would not be surprised if someone could rescue this, but well, this has been unreferenced for 15 years. Maybe this AfD will motivate someone to help? Otherwise, sorry, WP:V is clearly failed, and WP:GNG is not obvious. For all we know this can be some variant of Zhemao hoaxes. Ping User:Bearian who few days asked for this to be sourced or deleted at WT:GERMANY (nobody replied there so far...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Germany. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. I thought it might be rude, but I made an effort to get feedback first. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: subject does exist; apparently it was a private collection of Fritz Reuter related stuff by Hans-Joachim Griephan, and was merged into the Fritz Reuter Literaturmuseum in 2024. Some coverage about the merger in Nordkurier. I can't say how in-depth the offline sources at the German-language wiki article go, but with online sources gng wouldn't be passed. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Nyamo Kurosawa's observations. Additionally while the Fritz Reuter Literary Archive should be removed for lack of sources, it appears the Fritz Reuter Literature Museum does not lack sources and would be a good candidate for a Wikipedia article. Myotus (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Bhagyalakshmi

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and the notability test hinges on the quality and depth of the sourcing that can be used to independently verify their significance -- but this article is referenced entirely to her own writing metaverifying its own existence in Google Books directory entries rather than any evidence of GNG-building coverage and analysis about her, and the article has been tagged for sourcing problems since 2010 without ever having any better sourcing added.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and India. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have found reviews of three of her books on JSTOR, and added them to the article. There was also a more trivial mention on Proquest. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Pavlík

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

Pavlík never played much at professional level as far as I can tell. He later become manager of several clubs before disappearing from the football world in 2021. The best sources I found are TA3 and SME, both of which are passing mentions. Please note that this is a common birth name in Slovakia, so it's possible to find coverage of namesakes, such as a referee (he died in May 2021 at just 47; it's highly possible the referee was not the same person as AfD target). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article confirms that the manager and referee are two different people. Significant coverage about his exploits as a manager in three different countries exist [23] [24] [25] [26] (later also a fourth). He has not "disappeared from the football world in 2021"; here is an organized celebration of his 50th birthday before a football match. Claim about not playing professionally is baseless as well (cf. 5 years in Greece) Geschichte (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt instrument

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

Fails WP:DICDEF, being mostly a definition of what a "blunt instrument" is and some examples. Wikipedia is not a phrasebook and therefore unless something can be found to demonstrate its standalone notability, it probably shouldn't remain as an article. While I have a feeling blunt weapon may be notable, nothing in particular from this article is salvageable so it would have to be created from scratch anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, Military, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the term "blunt instrument" can have multiple uses (in espionage, for example), this article makes little sense. Leaning toward Delete at this time. Intothat darkness 16:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t think this is a DICDEF fail - it’s not about the phrase blunt instrument, it’s just about the weapon in the context of criminology. It’s just a stub. And if the title is the issue that can be changed, so I don’t think the reasons above are good for deletion (though I think blunt instrument is actually the better title). This is not at all a TNT case. Will look for sources later - I would guess there is enough in criminology sources to pass GNG and I don’t know where else we’d cover this so it’s not a NOPAGE situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so... that just makes it a criminology term. Same difference. Wikipedia is also not a legal handbook either, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There has to be multiple RS discussing blunt instruments as they relate to law, and right now the only source is not about blunt instruments, but blunt force trauma, which can be caused by things other than blunt instruments such as transportation fatalities. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic everything is a DICDEF violation. Yes, which is why I said I would look for sources later, and why I did not vote yet. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply: this is not data, a plot summary, lyrics, or lists of software updates (the examples it gives!), or anything analogous to that. Stubs are not a violation of INDISCRIMINATE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen Cloud

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seeing that this is a second nomination, a bit more in the nom. might have been helpful. I don't think there is a Schengen Cloud, nor ever really was. European countries do make certain requirements on the transit and storage of European data, that prevents processing in the U.S. in many cases, but the US companies offering cloud services have adapted to this by providing guaranties that data is not transited or processed outside of Europe. There is no parallel cloud service. Companies merely adapted to the political and legal reality. So, on that basis, I do not think there is an article here. It might be a useful footnote in another article. Having said that, some editors at the last AfD felt there were the sources for something. Revirvlkodlaku What is your analysis of the sources in the article? And is there a redirect/merge target available? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is sourced and no arguments have been brought up why the sourcing is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Lörrach

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

A small city in Germany with zero skyscrapers (defined as a building taller than 100m) and none planned. Similar case to List of tallest buildings in Gwalior, List of tallest buildings in Bradenton, Florida and List of tallest buildings in Macon, Georgia and many, many other AfDs that we have had over the last few years on similarly non-notable lists of buildings in cities where none of the buildings are actually that tall. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points for consideration:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as all of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Individual news articles about a handful of the individual buildings in this city do not automatically make an article about the heights of all of the buildings in that city a notable topic.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Lörrach' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The city is not the largest in Germany nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building simply being more than 40m tall makes it notable. It's an incredibly low bar. Can you imagine the reaction if we set the bar so low on a similar list for Tokyo or Chicago? There would be literally thousands of towers in those lists.
The topic is already covered more than adequately at List of tallest buildings in Germany and List of tallest buildings by German federal state, so this list is redundant. Yes, I am aware that none of the buildings in Lörrach are actually tall enough to be in either of those lists but that, if anything, speaks for just how non-notable this topic is! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just no notability whatsoever. Procyon117 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - more recently we have deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Barrie, Ontario, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Daegu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Lucknow (2nd nomination) with clear consensus. In my view, Lucknow and Daegu are much more prominent cities than Lörrach on a global scale so I don't see any precedence for having one on Lörrach. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per ample precedent. What with the disappearance of the Emporis lists it's not even clear that these are the tallest buildings in the city, but even so these are on the short side even compared to the many other places whose lists have been deleted in the past. Mangoe (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear failure of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Protective Coatings

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

Unreferenced for 19 years. A search for sources only yielded industry related press. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Association for Materials Protection and Performance, which has absorbed this organization and whose page has actual sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian civil disobedience in the United States

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

Article about an unnotale/unneccesary topic. I don't think there is a need for a Wikipedia article on Libertarian civil disobedience, since there are no similar articles about Conservative or Liberal civil disobidience. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please see Category:Civil disobedience in the United States. This is but one of many. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as WP:OR considering the many anachronisms. We need a secondary source discussion of this, not lists of examples. Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Lelkes

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

I've updated the link to HLSZ to prevent a BLP PROD deletion but, upon more thorough searches, there don't appear to be any good sources out there about Lelkes. I found this transfer announcement on Fehérvár's website, which would not be an independent source. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC and his professional career only lasted 14 minutes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, makes no credible claim to notability or significance. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Moura

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

Player's entire career was seven minutes over two second-division games in Portugal, plus 66 minutes over three League Cup games. [27] His entire career was less than what tens of thousands of professionals clock up every weekend. Wider sources do not point to any notability, such as this one: "In these friendly games, the use of various lesser-used players such as Rafa, Fábio Moura, Ricardo and Paulo Renato is noted". [28] Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail to meet WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT and WP:SPORTBASIC criteria. No references – [29]. Only a basic description – [30] and [31]. QEnigma (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Economics

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

This article is mostly unsourced other than the company's website, and Vault.com which does not meet WP:RS, reads like promotional material, and no one has improved it since it has been tagged as requiring reliable sources in December 2022.--Almaty🦢^✉✎ 10:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, England, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's a bunch of reporting with mentions of them and reports by them, however from what I saw none of the secondary reliable sources addressed Frontier Economics directly and in-depth, therefore it appears that this article does not meet the very high bar of WP:NCORP TarnishedPath^talk 11:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shitpyit (15°35′N 98°6′E)

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

Duplicate article of Sinpyay, location in the title is incorrect, not a plausible search term and no reliably-sourced content to merge. Not eligible for PROD. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not suitable for redirection since no one is going to type those coordinates into the search bar. Procyon117 (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap; redirects from former names are plausible, and sometimes they have to be disambiguated. It's a duplicate of an existing redirect Shitpyit (15°36′N 98°6′E), but is linked from other sites. The location points to the same area and is not misleading. Peter James (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete because first of all it's a bad title and thus a bad redirect, but also because an old US military map isn't a good enough source. Mangoe (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyad Boustany

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

WP:BEFORE done, and I can see that there is a living person of this name according to [this https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1266103/federalism-in-lebanon-a-cure-all-or-a-sham.html] 2021 piece in L'Orient-Le Jour. Similarly this in L'Orient-Le Jour indicates he may be a writer with arguable significance, that preamble to Wikipedia:Notability. As always, happy to be proven wrong about this, or anything else en.wp wide. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Lebanon. CptViraj (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an Arabic search turns up nothing, Mccapra (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kochu Hassan Kunju Bahadoor

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable guy from india. There is 0 information about him on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as a member of the Travancore state assembly. It’s not surprising that the internet isn’t bulging with sources about an Indian politician who died in 1926. My search brings up a number of Google books, but unfortunately either snippets or without preview, but a thorough search of contemporary offline sources would be appropriate before we come to a consensus to delete. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Ahumada

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

~~Poorly sourced BLP with no real assertion of notability. I found Los Kamas Deportes but this isn't enough for WP:SPORTBASIC on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was able to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. @GiantSnowman: JTtheOG (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Responds to WP:GNG thanks to the added sources. Thank you JTtheOG SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, User:Spiderone, why did you strike your nomination, are you withdrawing it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm happy to withdraw based on the new sources added. Of course, this can't be fully withdrawn with some participants still in favour of deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources added passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. New sources meet WP:GNG. Procyon117 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The new sources provided by JTtheOG seem to have enough significant coverage, specifically from sources 1-4. I believe this is the first AfD by Spiderone about a football player to have a big chance of being kept. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there are many over the years. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Renlund is probably my worst AfD of all time but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Mérida was particularly bad too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sisir Radar

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

This company page is 100% WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Contrary to the nom's claim about WP:PROMO, tone of this article appears informative and professional, language is factual and neutral as well. Sources within the article are itself strong except for the official websites. Additionally, Economic Times, NDTV provides SigCov of subjects technological innovations and achievements, passes WP:NCORP. Also, DSIJ, Business Standard, Pune News are supplementary support to notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 10:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Mugdho

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Farhan Faiyaaz, and a Merge into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. Even international responses were only because of his death. GrabUp - Talk 09:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. GrabUp - Talk 09:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and other similar articles. Procyon117 (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Death of Mir Mugdho. Deleting is not solution. And to be honest, its content is not actually so similar to Farhan Faiyaaz. Mir Mugdho's death had more and significant impact on Student-People's uprising. As his death is significant and notable, renaming it would be better idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehedi Abedin (talk • contribs)

Harvey Spevak

AfDs for this article:

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

Passing mentions in the RS's in the article - most focus on his company, not him. Potential history of COI per article tag from 2020.

The only article I could find where he is the sole subject is this interview from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2017/04/07/harvey-spevak-the-leadership-lessons-hes-learned-from-growing-equinox/ Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the prior deletion discussion, this source is a Forbes contributor, so as far as I'm aware it loses its reliability. Notability is not inherited. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

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

This article has been around since 2013, yet makes no claim of notability for any of the songs. The only reference is a book called "...130 Popular Songs...", which appears to be just a book of song lyrics, so it does not appear useful as a reliable source. There are a dozen more articles in this set. This article and its siblings appear to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or one of the other guidelines on that page. I suspect that List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi could be kept if some reliable sources were added, but the alphabetical directory pages should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the 14 other articles of this form should be bundled with this nomination; I shall do so now. There are no sources that suggest this level of detail is encyclopedic in nature; perhaps @Jax 0677: can explain why these database-detailed articles are notable. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I split List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi because it was very long. I will not be upset if this page and others like it no longer exist, but I do suggest redirecting to List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi with history in tact so long as that page exists. If that page no longer exists, then I suggest redirecting to Mohammed Rafi with history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having recorded thousands of songs in multiple languages, this database cannot be entertained here. Lorstaking (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why must we delete, and not redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Since this is such a large bundled nomination, I want to make sure we have a solid consensus on what should be done with these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The songs do not require this level of detail, maybe they can be sorted into a single article. Xoocit (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, we MUST trim the articles before we merge them. That was the whole point of the split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Pavlov (swimmer)

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT as there is not significant coverage in reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Adabow (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joy (Inside Out)

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

I tried to do BEFORE, but I don't see any SIGCOV but movie reviews and about actors. Her current reception was mostly about the actress, who voiced Joy; not the character itself. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's already sufficient coverage in the article to meet GNG. Nom suggests that coverage of the voice actress is irrelevant. I disagree. The reception section is appropriate already, although likely improvable. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-written article about one of the main characters in a major Pixar movie franchise. I think enough coverage is given to the Joy character within the included sources. --Alan Islas (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inside Out (franchise)#Cast and characters per nom. Not seeing any SIGCOV in the article and no search on the part of any of the participants seems to have turned up anything either. Willing to change my vote if anything's discovered but from what I'm seeing there's not much here that indicates standalone notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep My impulse was to suggest a merge, but the text and sources in the criticism/reception section are good enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inside Out (franchise)#Cast and characters per nom. Not independently notable; the mentions of her are pulled from sources about the film itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, arguments are divided between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough sources in the article to show GNG. More sources can be found online too (e.g. - [32] talks about the character in depth. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inside Out (franchise)#Cast and characters per nom. and ZXCVBNM. Not independently notable. Lazy, but I don't plan on restating previous points.

Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 06:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pantodapoi

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

Unreferenced stub gives a definition for "Pantodapoi" which appears to be original research as the main sources found online are product pages for "Pantodapoi Phalangite" miniatures made by a maker called "Xyston". Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Toys, and Greece. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not expert enough with Greek military units to feel confident in voting, but I did check some typical reference sources, including Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities and Pauly-Wissowa, neither of which has an entry for "pantodapoi". I also checked under "auxiles" or related headwords. A broad search of the classical materials at Perseus turned up the word with reference to a kind of sauce (perhaps I misunderstood) and in a couple of other places, but not with reference to soldiers. A Google search for "pantodapoi soldiers" turned up a set of circular-looking definitions, perhaps based on this article or wherever its definition came from in the first place.

I suspect that what has happened here is that the article's creator confused a description of some auxiliary soldiers with a name for their unit: pantodapoi phalangites means "miscellaneous soldiers (in a phalanx)", not "a particular type of soldiers (natives) making up a phalanx". But it would be nice to see if anyone with more expertise in Greek military history concurs with this. Not certain that the general notability guideline is what's relevant here; if the definition were correct, I think the topic would be notable. But if, as I believe, the article is the result of a misunderstanding, then it can be deleted as though it were a hoax (albeit an accidental one). P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Korea

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

Propose redirecting List of wars involving South Korea to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea, just like List of wars involving Korea#North Korea. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea (nominated by Cortador), which resulted in the same solution on 3 November 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Korea, North Korea, and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging other participants of previous discussion for follow-up: @Mikrobølgeovn, MolecularPilot, and My very best wishes:. NLeeuw (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This outcome (the merger) was most unfortunate. Although Korea has been a divided country since the 1940s, editors seem adamant to treat it as a single country. We don't we give Sudan and South Sudan the same treatment, for good measure? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF Cortador (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikrobølgeovn has a point, but I think the comparison of Korea with Sudan and South Sudan does not work well. Below I've presented some thoughts on comparing Yemen and Korea, curious what editors think of that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the arguments used by nom of previous AfD was This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen. The first half is true, but not the second: We've got List of wars involving North Yemen, List of wars involving South Yemen, as well as List of wars involving Yemen. However, given the significant amount of WP:OVERLAP between the three, we might consider the North and South lists WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, to be merged into List of wars involving Yemen. (The obvious difference being that North and South Yemen no longer exist, only a united Yemen, at least officially; by contrast, a united Korea no longer exists, but a North and South Korea do, despite claiming the whole peninsula for themselves.) But that would be a good idea for a follow-up if this AfD has been closed as nominated. NLeeuw (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the list of wars involving North Korea, declaring historical states on the territory of modern South Korea (like Goryeo) to be predecessors to South Korea specifically is questionable. There's currently no need for a separate article. Cortador (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a main one for Korea, with links to separate lists for North Korea and South Korea. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to this alternative proposal of three separate lists:

Korea until 1948
North Korea since 1948
South Korea since 1948

@Shazback below seems to be suggesting the same thing.

If we do choose for this alternative, I would recommend including the words until 1948 and since 1948 in the article titles just to make clear to both readers and editors what the scope of each list is, and to prevent creating WP:REDUNDANTFORKs again. Cortador was right that we shouldn't duplicate content, but merging all three lists into one might not be the best solution. Also for readability, navigability, and categorisation purposes, three separate lists would solve several practical problems, including the untenable idea that there is still a unified Korean state as of 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very surprised by the outcome of the previous AfD, which I did not see/participate in. I would be surprised to be directed to a page covering wars of multiple states if I was looking for either one.
My suggestion would for "List of wars involving Korea" to be a disambiguation page with 3 pages listed: "List of wars involving states of the Korean peninsula (pre-1948)"; "List of wars involving North Korea"; "List of wars involving South Korea". Both the latter pages only include post-1948 conflicts, and can have a section at the beginning stating that the state claim succession to pre-1948 states if necessary.
This follows the most common way people view and analyse the world when considering wars (by state), avoids duplication by clearly separating historical lists where states did not match current territories (e.g., whatever criteria are most relevant for inclusion can be decided, for instance to consider the Ungjin Commandery without needing to worry if either South or North Korea claim it as a predecessor state), while remaining clear link targets that can be found easily. Shazback (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these articles list every war that happened at a location, instead of the current nation. List of wars involving the United States doesn't list the wars that happened there between native Americans or others before the nation was officially founded. Dream Focus 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because the United States does not claim succession of those states? Plenty of other articles list them by geography / include predecessor states to the current country (e.g., List of wars involving Poland, List of wars involving Vietnam). Shazback (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, we do not create lists or categories based on the geographic location where a war or battle took place, as this is usually WP:NONDEFINING. See WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. These lists are about belligerents involved in a conflict, not countries etc. where the conflict took place. Therefore, there are no battles "involving the United States" prior to the American Revolutionary War. NLeeuw (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow / understand fully your comment. Both pages I shared include plenty of elements that occured prior to the current constitution / establishment of the Third Polish Republic or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many of these are lineage / predecessor states that had claim over the general area of the current state (not identical borders). Furthermore, a cursory / quick look at both these lists as well as the list of wars involving the United States shows they include cases were the state is not a belligerent per se: Bleeding Kansas in the USA list, the Later Trần rebellion (1407–1414) in the Vietnam list, and the Januszajtis putsch in the Poland list. I'd also note that World War I is listed as a conflict involving Poland, despite Poland not existing at any point during the war as a clear indication geography is considered when compiling these lists. These lists are not pages I like / find very useful exactly because of the points made in the WP: pages you linked. When looking at wars of Country A, my personal expectation is to see only the wars of what is commonly understood to be Country A in current geopolitics (i.e., for North Korea, 1948+, for the USA 1775/6+, for Poland 1918+, for Vietnam 1976+). But that's not how many other people like it, as they expect to see predecessor states' wars included in these lists. Shazback (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was a reply to both Dream Focus and you. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just adding some thoughts and pointing to some relevant policies and guidelines. NLeeuw (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I see it the current list can't stand as it is but not for notability reasons. South Korea did not exist until 1948, so if we are going to have a list with this title, the earliest war should begin in 1948. However, if we are going to include wars extending back in time in that geographic area than that topic is better covered at List of wars involving Korea. So I would support a Keep if the list does not include content before 1948 or a redirect to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the List of wars involving South Korea and Reestablish the List of wars involving North Korea. Those two are the modern countries and disserve their own articles. The List of wars involving Korea article should have the wars that occurred before the 1945 division of Korea. Dash9Z (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several participants of the previous AfD, as well as new participants, have indicated that they are surprised by the previous AfD's outcome, and do not think it serves as a good precedent for this one. That undermines my rationale.

As nom, moreover, I am open to the alternative proposal of three separate lists:

involving Korea until 1948
involving North Korea since 1948
involving South Korea since 1948

This alt proposal appears to enjoy a majority right now. The inclusion of the year 1948 in the title of all three separate lists also appears to enjoy some support, in order to prevent duplication (WP:REDUNDANTFORKs) and WP:OR by implying that North Korea and South Korea have already existed for hundreds of years. Even though the ROK and DPRK do not diplomatically recognise each other, the de facto reality is that Korea ceased to be a unified state in or around 1948, and has split in two, a situation which has been consolidated since the 1953 ceasefire. It is probably best if our lists of wars involving Fooland reflect that, and the year 1948 will serve as the turning point in which the Korea list splits into North Korea and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion is all over the place. This AFD is considering what, among the limited options, should happen with this article, List of wars involving South Korea. Right now, it seems like arguments are divided between Keep and Redirection. It doesn't help a closer to go off on tangents about what should happen with other articles, please present your argument on whether this specific article should be Kept, Merged, Redirected or Deleted. Larger discussions on this subject could perhaps occur on a related WikiProject talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:SPINOFF of List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. This list should only reflect the political entity of south korea (est 1948) and not the geographic location. I agree with the nom's proposal to have three different lists, with the north/south korea lists inside List of wars involving Korea (the subsections) being limited to at minimum extremely notable wars with articles, and with the "full" list/main article being linked to at the top of the section. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Endangered Species" (magazine cover)

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

Perhaps the worst WP:REFBOMB I've ever seen. Despite the large number of sources, many don't even even mention "Endangered Species", and none are significant coverage.

In the current version citations 1-5 source the background and do not mention the article at all.

6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are the barest passing mentions of the article.

14 through 20 again are about electoral history but do not even mention the article.

21 is a brief mention where Grunwald says the article didn't hold up and 22 is likewise nothing more than the quote used here.

23-26 are again just passing mentions.

In sum, there's certainly acknowledgement that the magazine's provocative headline was memorably wrong, but there's no substantial analysis of the article or a single source with depth to it to pass GNG – I guess it make sense that the title has simply "(magazine cover)". There's certainly more to be said at Democratic Party (United States)#21st century/Republican Party (United States)#21st century or elsewhere that can reference this, but not a standalone article for this. Reywas92^Talk 05:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to a TBD target. The WP:RS citations 9, 10, 11, and 13 each provide 1-2 paragraphs of coverage of the magazine cover (not the article) as a subject in itself. While references 23, 24, 25, 26 provide only fleeting, or single-sentence, mentions which don't contribute to SIGCOV, the first four (9, 10, 11, 13) are -- by themselves -- enough to sustain the standard of WP:SIGCOV. The fact the article is unnecessarily long and over-referenced doesn't really impact the WP:N of the subject. It could probably use a good trim but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Chetsford (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9 is a single sentence.11 and 13 are the same source and also a single sentence. 12 simply quotes a single sentence from the article: "As Time magazine reporter Michael Grunwald observed at the time, 'Republicans have the desperate aura of an endangered species...the electorate is getting less white, less rural, less Christian—in short, less demographically Republican.'" with no additional coverage.

No depth whatsover in any of these. So I really fail to see how this is sigcov. Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The breadth of coverage of the directly related sources which -- per our standards -- do "not need to be the main topic of the source material", taken in combination with those sources that have mere fleeting mentions, collectively define WP:ARTN. But I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Best - 18:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't expect this magazine article to necessarily be the main topic of the sources, but I do expect more than a single sentence in any one of them. The parties' histories or 2008 United States presidential election#Analysis can reflect the expectations of the time that existed beyond this magazine cover, but the cover itself doesn't need an article. Reywas92^Talk 22:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I think the "single-sentence" mentions merely reinforce the longer, more focused references and the article may be unnecessarily long and over-referenced. Again, though, I'm happy to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Azzam

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

Significant coverage in reliable sources is lacking. Does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:NBASIC. Frost 05:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Russia, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found aside from player profile sites. There wouldn't be anyway from someone who only made their professional debut seven days ago. Procyon117 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – Per above, the player just made his professional debut. Svartner (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Vinson

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

I am struggling to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources available contain routine coverage of an invite to a college all-star game, with a notable exception being this piece from Alabama News Center, which has maybe a half-dozen sentences of independent coverage of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Alabama, and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 1722

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

Clearly fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. Just is basically a WP:COOKIE accident. Routine and unnotable. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't the Miracle on the Hudson. Wake me up when the pilot appears on Letterman and movies are made about this. schetm (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting coverage, and similarity to a well-known accident isn't notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. Falling GNG. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 13:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine. Procyon117 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor incident. SignorPignolini (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A nothingburger. Aircraft hit birds and make precautionary landings all the time. WP:NOTNEWS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Humphrey

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

Draftify as I am struggling to find much of any in-depth coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG. Despite the WP:REFBOMB, everything that comes up is basic coverage of either his college commitment (or de-commitment) or his transfer to another school, with some quotes and stats sprinkled in. This is what we would call "routine transactional announcements" in other sports. JTtheOG (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Georgia (country), and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears be coverage with real depth. E.g., (1) part one/part two, (2) part one/part two, and (3) this. Cbl62 (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I was pinged by the article creator, but I was already planning on participating). Cbl62's coverage looks sufficient. Also, I don't buy the "routine" argument – if someone receives SIGCOV for e.g. transferring, then that's SIGCOV in accordance with GNG, especially if it's national-level coverage like we have here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justo Lamas

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

I cannot find evidence of Lamas' notability as a singer nor for his company which is a worthwhile educational initiative but doesn't appear notable. Coverage appears to be churnalism that is otherwise non independent. There are a lot of hits noting one of the company's artists is performing and some related to someone else of this name, but I cannot find anything of depth. Star Mississippi 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Organizations, Companies, Education, and Argentina. Star Mississippi 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Mike (disambiguation)

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

There is only one topic with the name "Magic Mike." Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) was deleted for similar reasons. GilaMonster536 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: see WP:SETINDEX -Mushy Yank. 08:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Two partial matches and one legit entry (plus DJ Magic Mike, who is covered by the hatnote in the primary topic). The partial matches are also covered by Magic Mike#Sequels. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Taleb

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claims here are that he was a regional vice-president, a campaign director and a regional election candidate, none of which are free passes over NPOL without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for them, but the only footnote here is a blog entry rather than a reliable source. It also warrants note that there isn't an article about him on the French Wikipedia, where articles about genuinely notable French politicians would obviously be quite expected. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and France. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL and the lack of a French language article does not bode well for his notability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neotia University

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

This will need to satisfy either WP:NORG or WP:GNG in order to be considered notable, both of which it fails to do. Although this article cites no usable sources, the sources I found while performing a WP:BEFORE did not have WP:SIGCOV, most of them were only mentioning it's rankings or the events conducted at the university. [33][34][35][36], note that none of these sources identify an individual reporter and have generic bylines as author information, so they all fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Universities established by statute have always considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Please point out the relevant guideline/consensus. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has consistently been the result of AfDs. Hence consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only notability guideline pertaining to universities is at WP:NSCHOOL which states :- All universities, ..... that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline. (Emphasis mine). There's an apparent contradiction here between what you are saying and the guideline, additionally can you also demonstrate how what you are saying is the consensus on notability of universities established by statue.- Ratnahastin (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the somewhat related SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC,[37] the RFC close found that
Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community.
Rightly so. The page is notable if it meets the appropriate notability guidelines and policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the RfC only applied to secondary schools and not universities and shouldn't be cited to support any other deletion arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my words somewhat related. Circular arguments do not stop being circular when the students at the relevant institution are a couple of years older. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing that I can find that this meets NORG, which would be required for a private university. I would happily move to redirect if someone can find an appropriate target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence so far establishing notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Island City, Indiana

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

It's rare for an "X City" place to fail verification, and I'd like to think there is some information out here that would at least clarify matters here. So far, I've found nothing that wasn't a reference to the mining enterprise. Judging from the oldest topos I've seen, the mine was southeast of the town "site", for they show a strip mine there. Everything else says "rail point", so the most likely history is that they wanted a town there, but it failed. But I cannot prove this nor any other theory. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can provide references to several reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Island City, Indiana. Cullen328 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Sanchez

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

Declined PROD; apparently, it was PRODded years before. Old article. Fails a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Venezuela. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Couldn't find any decent secondary sources with significant coverage at all to support WP:NACTOR. As an alternative to deletion, consider redirect to I Love New York (TV series) as this was pretty much his only role of any significance. SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio (company)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. The VentureBeat article is written by the CEO of the company itself, the remaining coverage is of routine fundraising events (WP:ORGTRIV). Brandon (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Software, and California. Brandon (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trina Pratt

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Iowa. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Please ping me if SIGCOV is found. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aissa Bouaraguia

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netta Schreiber

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Israel. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Pervushkina

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Svitlana Pylypenko

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Kawamura

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Pedrazzini

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Italy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Residential Cleaning Services International

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about their work in reliable sources to establish their significance -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability, mostly the organization's own self-published content about itself but also some content self-published by other directly affiliated entities, with not even one GNG-worthy source shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elyssa East

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

This subject appears to fail WP:GNG for lack of WP:SIGCOV by unrelated parties. Interviews, WP:BLPSPS websites and the like don't help here. This subject also fails WP:NAUTHOR because contributions appear not to be very significant. And PEN New England Awards do not confer automatic notability. JFHJr (㊟) 01:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 01:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or rename. Her book, Dogtown, is notable, having won a PEN award and been reviewed by, e.g., The New York Times. We should have an article about the book or its author. pburka (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: apart from one sentence, this page is about Dogtown, her notable book. The content should be kept. We can rename the page or leave it alone. In my opinion, it's often preferable to have pages about authors rather than books, since she may write more books in the future. pburka (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state), Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champaben

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

I'm trying to clean up articles in projects Jainism and Hinduism. I came across this supposedly biographical article of a personality with poor notability. While I acknowledge that notable religious figures should have a separate article, I also see that this one simply only advertises the personality's religious beliefs and makes unsupported arguments without any credible secondary sources. The article may be deleted as there have been no sources as per WP:RS since January 2018. Tagging User:RJShashwat, User:Goyama and User:Expectopatronum30 for their views as they have been active in the project Jainism and have responded in an earlier AfD I nominated. Note that the creator of the article was blocked indefinitely in March 2018 for a lengthy history vandalising other articles and sockpuppetry. I also noticed that the creator of this article had created another one before this one with the name "Sister Champa" that I assume would refer to the same person. However that article was speedily deleted for not having enough reliable sources and poor notability of the subject of the article. ParvatPrakash (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Gujarat. ParvatPrakash (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability at all. Content about the subject can be added to Kanji swami as a section, but secondary reliable sources don't confirm whatever the article says. Goyama (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Hernandez (soccer, born 1993)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Nevada. JTtheOG (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Played practically only at the university level, fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret D. Nadauld

AfDs for this article:

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

Margaret D. Nadauld was a former president of the Young Women organization. This article was deleted on october 17, 2018 for being unnotable. It was recreated today, the author added 25 new sources but all of them seem to be just brief mentions of her. I still think that this article does not satisfy notability guidelines. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Women in Religion has also been notified. Oronsay (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first AfD had no discussion on it which is disappointing and I don't know how to see what the article looked like at that time. My comments are that there seems to be reporting on her actions as president of the organization from non-related sources and that women, especially in more socially conservative areas like religious groups, are mentioned less than equivalent men. Having said that I am not certain this article either meets or doesn't meet requirements I just want to help start a conversation that should be had. The primary author of the article posted on the talk page their reasoning for keeping, not sure why it isn't here.

Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article was nominated for deletion by a new WP user (account created Nov. 5), who nominated 25+ articles for deletion in one day using Twinkle, with the explanation, "Its relaxing, I love cleaning Wikipedia from bad articles!" on his talk page. When I kindly (I hope) pointed out that this creates significant work for others, within hours this user nominated this new article of mine for deletion. Because I think the deletion proposal was not made on the merits or in good faith I believe this meets the requirements for WP:SK per reason 2a.

Regarding the merits of the case for deletion, the proposer reports to have perused the 29 attached sources and only found "just brief mentions of her". Hmmm. Six articles are entirely about Nadauld. All of the rest that are news articles have at least full paragraphs about her, and are in the context of her activities and accomplishments. As with the other 20+ proposed deletions, he does not report having followed the required WP:BEFORE process, and I believe has not done so. This despite being told by at least three people about WP:BEFORE before he proposed deletion of this article. I've counted over 200 articles mentioning Nadauld in my WP:BEFORE search, one of which is a lengthy, independent secondary source newspaper article entirely about her. Somehow he missed that.

This new article establishes notability by using over 25 different sources. None are trivial mentions per WP:SIGCOV. They are a mix of primary and secondary.

Several sources are clearly, irrefutably independent, including the retrospective of Nadauld's presidency in The Daily Spectrum, the Provo Daily Herald article, and the several Salt Lake Tribune articles. The Tribune was founded specifically for the purpose of being a counterpoint to the Church's viewpoint, as detailed in its WP article. And three secondary sources are academic historical research papers, assessing impact of various initiatives during Nadauld's tenure. As a whole, this all establishes the notability of the article's subject.

Other factors regarding Nadauld's notability:

She was global president of a one million-plus member notable organization.
The organization has had sixteen presidents in its 144-year history, and Nadauld was the only one who does not have a WP article, despite serving a full term of five years. I tend to believe the deletion of Nadauld's article would be an error (if it were sourced properly), rather than the creation of the other fifteen articles being errors.
Seven other WP articles reference Margaret D. Nadauld. This is specified as a measure of notability.
WP:SUSTAINED is established by several sources:
- the 2005 masters thesis,
- the 2008 Spectrum retrospective article,
- the news report of the luncheon honoring her nine years after leaving office,
- the peer reviewed research from 2015 assessing her impact,
- the television interview with Nadauld in 2015 analyzing organization changes made by the church,
- multiple invitations to speak at university graduations in the decades since her service, and
- the fact that several quotes from her speeches and books regularly appear on social media and quote collections, such as on Goodreads, twenty-plus years after her tenure. This google image search shows several hundred examples: [38]. Do I need to link some of these as sources? Davemc0 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the sources of this version of the page, they are (organized by supporting notability):

3. The Spectrum article is actually good.

21. OK, but also just the school newspaper that her husband was the president at

28. OK

2. A short biography (and a speech she wrote), I think a lot hinges on if this biography was provided by her or written independently. If it's the former then it doesn't support notability at all.

6. a mention

7. a mention

8. a mention

9. a mention

15. a mention

16. a mention

23. a mention

10. trivial

12. trivial

13. trivial

14. trivial

18. trivial

19. trivial

20. trivial

22. trivial

24. trivial

25. trivial

26. trivial

4. primary, no notability

5. primary, no notability

27. primary, no notability

29. entirely consists of quotes from her, no notability

1. no mention

11. no mention

17. no mention

I think you are overstating your case here when you might not need to. As far as the other factors go:

500,000 people at the time she was president according to the best article about her but potato potato.

I've looked through the other presidents, many of them are also notable for things besides being president and at least one of the others I think doesn't have enough sources on her page for her to be notable either.

Good point

The masters thesis barely mentions her, I didn't find the 2015 peer reviewed research about her impact, which source is that? Again the spectrum article is the best article for her notability.

@SolxrgashiUnited can you have a look through the Spectrum article and let me know what you think? Moritoriko (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, im unable to access it. For some reason the site does not open. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. What behavior do you get when you try? We're talking about these two links, right? [39] and [40]. It works for me on two computers and two browsers. Weird. I can make a copy for you somewhere if you need me to. Davemc0 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudflare blocked me. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pain! I put copies of the two halves of the article on my Google Drive here: https: //photos.app.goo .gl/DyDaHMCEB2iaFrkG8 (you have to copy and paste the link without spaces). If Cloudflare blocks that for you I could put them on my talk page for a short time and then delete them. Cheers. Davemc0 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources:

2. Agree that the bio doesn't indicate notability if she wrote it. Typically, the university leadership will put together a bio from a few sources. But ignoring the bio, this source is a college graduation address, which is a strong indicator of notability, especially since she was invited 20 years after her presidency term ended.

6. Five paragraphs are about her and what she said. The other 6 paragraphs are about Faust, who also spoke. So this is much more than a mention.

7. The article is about six speeches given. Three paragraphs were about hers. That's more than a mention, in my opinion.

Er, the histories were 2011, not 2015. They are refs 16 and 18. 16 is a history of the whole organization, and has three paragraphs about Nadauld and her tenure. That's NOT trivial, and places her leadership in the context of the broader history. The later paragraph about camps is also regarding the 8400 acre camp that Nadauld started.

18. The other history. One long paragraph places Nadauld's 2002 changes in context. I'd promote this one from "trivial" to "a mention".

29. Correct that it's not a news story about her. The fact that a network affiliate news organization chose her to interview about the actions of a 16 million member church is how this indicates notability. And the fact that the station did so 13 years after Nadauld ended her leadership in the church's organization is the indication of WP:SUSTAINED.

The size of the organization (1 million vs. 500,000) came from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article. It's a 1991 figure. I know the church grew between 1991 and 2002, so I was surprised to see the 500,000 figure. Similarly, that article says she visited 25 countries as president, while the Ensign College bio says 55. I don't know which is more accurate.

Anyone have thoughts about the couple hundred post of quotes of hers that are currently floating around social media? Recall that sources in articles and actual notability are completely separate concepts.

I can't track what you're replying to with your other comments. Which was a good point? Which was overstating my case? If you don't think I need to state the case more strongly I'd sure appreciate if you would render a "Keep" or "Speedy Keep" opinion to help us all move on.

Davemc0 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davemc0 You should remove the bolding from your later comments, as editors are allowed only one bolded !vote in any discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "I don't think" isn't really the standard for deletion. Clearly, the individual is notable. (Capricious AfD noms really do diminish WP.) DesignatedGrammarian (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. . Seems to satify satisfy quite well the requirements of WP:GNG. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/procedural keep per Davemc0. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Striking per the below. I'll do a proper source review. In fact, no. Off my expertise. I'll unwatch this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: I am not going to weigh in on the merits of this debate, but one participant, Davemc0, sought to canvass several editors (see ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]) to manipulate the outcome by !voting "keep." At least one editor, BoyTheKingCanDance, !voted "keep" after receiving the inappropriate canvassing message. (Furthermore, "speedy keep" does not apply since, whether or not the sources are as participants say, asserting a lack of notability is an appropriate rationale.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about the canvassing rule. Someone pointed it out right afterward, and I apologized and haven't done it since. While I was not neutral in phrasing my request for help, I think the people who I asked to take a look mostly meet the description of "concerned editors" under "appropriate people". The only canvassed person who responded is a very expert reviewer of new pages, so I believe the discussion is not very tainted. Anyway, sorry. Davemc0 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really think "Speedy Keep" DOES apply here. The fact that the nominator chose a rationale does not negate the fact that it was a vexatious nomination. If otherwise, any vexatious nomination could circumvent "Speedy Keep" by simply randomly mentioning a rationale. But the rule appears to be designed to prevent that:

"The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion. For example:

obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured content or April Fools jokes) (WP:SK 2.a.)

Davemc0 (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per today's revelations regarding canvassing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 6 and 7 confirm this person was the chair of the organization. Source 21 is also confirmation, albeit brief. If the role itself is notable, we at least have basic confirmation of this person holding that role. The rest is more than enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Lassiter

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this American former soccer player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best I found was routine coverage of his draft selection and contract signing. JTtheOG (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New York, and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Player monitoring sites indicate mostly non-top tier football ([50] and [51]). Fail to meet WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT and WP:SPORTCRIT. QEnigma (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]