Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

1 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 31	November 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think , not eligible for main space Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Fortant

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

No refs on the page for many years. It seems he was part of the French military mission to Japan (1867–1868), which seems like an interesting historical incident. However I'm not seeing much that can be described as substantial RS about this person. fr.wiki has more information but is equally bereft of sources. JMWt (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Japan, and France. JMWt (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Japanese, but GoogleTranslate can, and the Japanese version is vastly better than either the English or French ones, and almost convinces me that this is a notable person who deserves an article. For the moment I'd go for delete, but it could perhaps be saved by an editor with knowledge of the incident and, ideally, Japanese. Athel cb (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe. It appears from ja.wiki that there's a source:

鈴木明著、「追跡―一枚の幕末写真」、集英社（1984年）、ISBN 978-4087724929

Even if that is substantially about this individual, it appears to only be a single source. JMWt (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to French military mission to Japan (1867–1868) as ATD unless decent sources are found. I csn5 fund much even in Japanese. Mccapra (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Barnes

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

This page is a mess. This article is all in universe information and no real world information. There only two sources for this article, one probably a dead link, and another and interview. This overall doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:FILM. I would highly request a speedy delete. Toby2023 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest

AfDs for this article:

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

This event lacks in-depth, independent and significant coverage as confirmed by a search on Google News. Also, the award is given primarily for promotional purposes by entities involved in marketing which is one of the exclusionary criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals). Charlie (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and India. Charlie (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Static/Crash

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

Can't find any reliable sources covering the album (Google search). The only coverage mentioning the album title is this short music blog post and it's not significant coverage, just a passing mention. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Mark Inside. I found two reviews from Exclaim! ([1], [2]), a review from The Coast (newspaper) ([3]), and a few sentences about the album in a NOW article about the lead singer and guitarist ([4]). But all of that coverage is too brief to be significant. toweli (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rituraj Kishore Sinha

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is not about an elected candidate at either the national or state level, so it fails to follow the WP:NPOL guidelines. Also, he fails to qualify for a page according to WP:NBIO, or WP:ANYBIO. Charlie (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

AfDs for this article:

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

My nom concerns from the first AfD discussion still hold. This subject fails WP:NPOL and still fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. From cursory search, nothing useful was found too. Also fails WP:NACADEMIC as far as I am concerned. There are no credible claims of significant/importance here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Albania. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I can't find anything notable about the topic on the article nor online, and most news articles about them are months to years apart. Deuxde (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nisma Thurje as an alternative to deletion. The political party seems to be somewhat notable, but I'm not seeing much notability independent of that for Shabani. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musawo Julie

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

A draft that was unilaterally moved into mainspace. A WP:BEFORE has failed, and it's sourced with non-notability proving sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Uganda. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎. AfD does not discuss deletion of any drafts; only MfD does that, and I will initiate a procedural nomination there. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Heltah Skeltah (album)

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

Unreleased album, doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. Sources are unreliable per WP:GENIUS and WP:RSPYT (YouTube link is broken anyway). Already covered in Helter Skelter (The D.O.C. album). Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 1 November 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.

Keramikou 28

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

Not a G4, but substantively the same issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerameikou 28 where it was deleted. Opening this discussion since content better assessed here than at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_vanishing_and_restoration_of_a_deleted_article Star Mississippi 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Greece. Star Mississippi 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please share the problems of the current Keramikou 28 page? IlEssere (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the prior discussion and the ANI in which you are participating. Several editors have made it clear and there is no need to duplicate the same discussion here. Star Mississippi 17:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metaxourgeio#Landmarks_and_attractions: it is listed there; and merge content offering outline of the building with best sources (artnet, lifo); not fiercely opposed to Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, and History. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I do see some neutrality issues in the article, there's no need for redirection or deletion given that the article underwent wp:tnt which was given as a reason for deletion in the first place, and that the topic itself has enough sources to establish notability. As said, if neutrality or other prose issues occur, it is best to raise the issue on the talk page. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I vaguely recall this Draft, and I apparently reviewed and declined it four times (though that's not in the article history) for npov and source issues.

My feelings are it was correctly accepted by @ToadetteEdit on this revision.

The article has since been expanded and some npov language has crept back in. I think it's easily salvageable as an article by slimming down some of the text. I do believe it passes notability. Qcne (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cringe

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV on the band itself, only the band lead's relationship with Rachael Ray. मल्ल (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. मल्ल (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 Hands (song)

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

WP:TOOSOON. A single instagram post does not confer notability(!). Searche do not come up with anything. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, all I can find on it is social media announcements and a few passing mentions in RS, nothing that meets WP:NSONG. The usual solution for this is to redirect to the album, but a new one hasn't been announced yet. The correct title of 2 Hands already redirects to Tate McRae discography, so if the song charts or otherwise becomes notable after its release, then that redirect should be expanded, rather than this one. Wikishovel (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game of Banking

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

Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this board game. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, and Products. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like two previous nominations have failed to delete this in 2009, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game Of Banking, which I closed, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game Of Banking (2nd nomination). Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That first close probably could/should have been a soft delete, though it was 15 years ago and maybe the rules around deletion were more lenient. Conyo14 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Enterprises

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is essentially a fork of Adani Group and provides no new information. The past AfD had only two votes and one of them was a sock and another an UPE who have been blocked, refer to this for more information. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Ratnahastin. A lot of WP: CONTENTFORKING is there in article. It is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK actually.Adamantine123 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, News media, Television, Technology, Aviation, Internet, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --wooden superman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

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

Despite its creation by a blocked sockpuppet, specifically User:Bhusungk, this political party was founded this year and has not yet participated in any elections. The article currently fails to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As a newly established regional political organization, it has not made notable contributions to regional or national political landscapes. Most sources are centered on initial news coverage reporting the party’s formation by a well-known actor, lacking substantial analysis or depth regarding the party’s policies, actions, or influence. There is no indication that the party has engaged in any significant political activities or initiatives that would establish its importance. Additionally, no reliable sources provide evidence of public or political recognition or electoral impact that would qualify it as a noteworthy political entity.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Tamil Nadu. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many sockpuppets of the original creator edited the article? And if I read the article correctly, a predecessor did contest elections. but yes, I have a promo-concern. The Banner talk 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I don’t have specific information regarding sockpuppets. The predecessor, however, was primarily a fan club rather than a political party. If the fan club meets notability standards, it might warrant a separate article. The current political entity does not appear notable at this time, which I interpret as aligning with WP:TOOSOON.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of sources do you think would help Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam pass WP:GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Áč

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

My research indicates that he only played 36 matches for FC Nitra and has disappeared for over ten years since. The only secondary source I found is a passing mention on Nitraden, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Mosh Fest

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, United States of America, and Wisconsin. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I found was this one single page from a book dropping its name once without SIGCOV. [5] Other than that, nothing to be found. Doesn't meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Net Applications

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

not notable per this BretiPoaf1 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing OP meant per NCORP. I agree with that, but there is enough due weight coverage for the company's browser usage data to merge the criticism section into Usage share of web browsers#Differences in measurement. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freak XXI

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

Non-notable band. Unsourced since 2008, and I was unable to find any reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They are visible in the usual streaming and directory sites, but I can find no reliable media coverage of their career or pro reviews of any of their albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LTN Family

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

Fails WP:GNG: I found a few mentions ([6], [7]) and a routine news article. Gheus (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Pakistan. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a list at least; WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a list. And where are the sources for the items that would be included in a list? Geschichte (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list, make it a list then (and, anyway, it is pretty much a list, yes, sorry) Not sure I understand your question. Remove unsourced items if you like, blue items do not urgently need sourcing but feel free. That is a cleanup issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to List of television channels in Pakistan until the missing sources are added if you prefer. Either way, I am opposed to have this deleted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.paktvdramas.pk/LTNFAMILY for verification of a few of the series (not for notability of the channel, I must insist) ; note: the channel was formerly known as Filmazia if I am not mistaken: https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/won-t-allow-indian-content-to-be-aired-it-damages-our-culture-pakistan-supreme-court/story-TgIFYTHUwQaczFyYCxW5vL.html https://tribune.com.pk/story/1460942/court-quashes-pemras-ban-airing-indian-dramas; Newsline. (2007). Pakistan, Newsline Publications, vol 19, p. 99 indicated that it was then the country's "first movie channel , which features old and new Pakistani films, film-based shows and entertainment news". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Labeling an article as a list merely to bypass the GNG is considered WP:GAMING. The topic does not meet the GNG , so it should be deleted. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing notable. Fails GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't meet GNG; barely any references, and there's no significant coverage on LTN Family, thus it should be deleted. Deuxde (talk) 12:29, 1 November 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.

Adam Motor Company

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

Fails WP:NCORP: there is no direct and in-depth article about the company. The coverage is mostly Adam Revo so a redirect per WP:ATD is possible. Gheus (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I managed to find this [8], but it is WP ROUTINE, occasional not sigcov. Nothing more while doing WP BEFORE. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adam Revo: Better merge this into Adam Revo, as the company itself clearly fails to meet the NCORP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Rios

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

Noting that notability, once established, doesn't vanish over time, I have strong doubts that Rios was ever notable in a Wikipedia sense. The article was created during the Wild West days of Wikipedia when articles were almost added willy nilly. I have done a WP:BEFORE, the more so since the alleged references in the article are pretty much useless, and can find nothing useful about her. There's quite a bit by her. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. मल्ल (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The cited sources don't discuss the subject, most of them don't even mention her. The article fails WP:ANYBIO, and WP:V. A quick search doesn't yield any useful results. I doubt that the subject is notable. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pale Horseman

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

No refs on the page, I'm having difficulty finding RS that are more than blogs. JMWt (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and History. JMWt (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - Kirkus and Publishers Weekly both reviewed the book. Both reviews are on the short side, hence the "Weak" part of of my recommendation, but in previous discussions, those have been considered enough to pass WP:NBOOK. At the very least, deletion is out of the question, as the series it is part of is undoubtably notable, so a Redirect/Merge should be done if this is not retained as an separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Striking the "Weak" portion of my recommendation. Unquestionably meets WP:NBOOK with the addition of the reviews below. Rorshacma (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviewed by the Historical Novel Society (here), and some longer reviews in The Sunday Telegraph (here), Washington Post (here) and The Philadelphia Inquirer (here). There are many more shorter ones scattered throughout Newspapers.com. There's also some more standard trade publication reviews from Library Journal (here), and Booklist (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW - and WP:HEY. Geschichte (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional calculus of sets

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

Mathematical topic stemming from a 2021 article published in a semi-predatory journal. References are all very primary, or else mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand (e.g., a general reference for fractional calculus; a book on abelian groups). I'm not seeing either the huge number of citations or the textbook coverage that I'd expect for a notable topic. Written by an editor who appears to be one of the authors of the 2021 paper in an apparent attempt to promote their research (but since it was properly run through AfC, COI concerns are reduced). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fractional calculus can be a legitimate subject but for whatever reason it has been heavily taken up by paper-mill authors publishing low-quality papers in predatory journals and citing each other through citation cartels, a phenomenon described for instance in Science [9] although not specifically with respect to fractional calculus. Many of the references in this article, not just the foundational one, look highly dubious. For that reason I think they should not be taken at face value. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations

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

A stand-alone article is totally unwarranted in this case given how this individual was never convicted. These types of article creations are completely frowned upon by WP:BLP policy. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or redirect to Sean Combs#Sexual misconduct allegations, lawsuits, and arrest. Not sure if a merge would be appropriate given he hasn't been convicted or the trial even started. Procyon117 (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Crime, Events, Sexuality and gender, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect for now. Probably salt further editing until he's convicted. Tavantius (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sean Combs is a public figure, and so not covered by WP:BLPCRIME, but rather by WP:BLPPUBLIC. For public figures in high-profile criminal cases or lawsuits, BLP does not frown upon covering the cases -- whether they end in conviction/liability or not. We have many, many articles about celebrity trials. Combs's court cases undoubtedly meet WP:GNG. It's not a BLP issue, or a GNG issue, it's a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue. In this case, there is so much WP:RS specifically about these court cases (and certainly much more to be written as the cases progress) that including them in the parent biography article may be WP:UNDUE for the biography article. In any event, just on length alone, the sub-article about the court cases is long enough to merit a WP:SPINOFF. I see no reason to delete, or merge. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is a result of a long split discussion. Though that discussion was about the the entire legal issues section, and the sexual allegations is a subsection. This subject is notable and worldwidely debated, as shown by reliable sources. The article can indeed be expanded with more content, as there are more things to be added. Web-julio (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:PUBLICFIGURE provides pretty clear guidance that reliable coverage of embarrassing but reliably sourced content belongs on Wikipedia even when a trial has not concluded. With that being said a stand-alone page is excessive. If the material is too long it should be trimmed of repetitive material and unnecessary detail. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Adani

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

Non-notable individual. Sources are promotional and cited to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Only known for being a relative of Gautam Adani. See WP:INHERITED. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priti Adani

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

Non-notable individual. Sources are merely about the statements she has made which are sourced to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and she is only known for being the wife of Gautam Adani. See WP:INHERITED. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, Gujarat, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ardennes

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

No independent RS on the page for a long time. I'm not seeing why this is considered notable to meet the standards for inclusion. I'm not really convinced a RD is necessary but as an ATD it could be redirected to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekly West

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

No refs on the page. Seems WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC in the sense that the majority of the page is a lengthy quote from the newspaper about an event. I don't see that this quote, despite arguably recording an important historical event, means the newspaper meets the standards of notability for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced; searching for information is hopeless. Even if sources could be found, we need more information for an article than just who established this paper and that it once ran an article someone found interesting. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Defense Show

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (22 September 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to initiate the deletion of the article once again, using the same argument from the first deletion discussion - "The exhibition fails to meet WP:EVENT. Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Arguably WP:TOOSOON." TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Saudi Arabia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes per WP:DIVERSE which states Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. I'm attaching some sources which gives significant national and international coverage for the event. [10], [11] (coverage from an Indian reliable source), [12] and many more. The nominator has not any proper WP:Before. A simple Google search as World Defence show is turning up many reliable sources giving significant overage. 111.92.113.32 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing the attached sources - [1] - EDR Magazine is not an RS, [2]- Firstpost is not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 424#Unreliable sources? FirstPost /TimeNow, [3] - Alarabiya is also not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 98#Alarabiya, reliable or not?. As a nominator, I have done required WP:BEFORE and also conducted the simple google search and the google news search as suggested by the IP. However, these efforts did not yield any reliable sources with significant coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A similar group of IPs, starting with the range 111.92.xx.xx, has been involved in editing another page about a military equipment manufacturing company from the Middle East. It wouldn't be surprising if they were all connected. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinapia

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

Fails WP:BAND, did not have significant coverage, and any coverage in reliable sources seems to be just regurgitations of press releases from their agency. Released one song that did not chart on any qualifying WP:CHART, then disbanded. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a related article for one of the singers, Eunwoo, has been proposed for deletion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they did chart on a recognised billboard chart, the World Digital Song Sales chart at a peak of 18. They also have reliable sources coverage such as Naver already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for charts at WP:MUSIC is: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." World Digital Song Sales isn't a national music chart and isn't listed as an acceptable chart at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS.
As far as the Naver articles you mentioned, of the three in the article, this and this are just regurgitations of the press releases from their agency and don't meet the definition of "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" as described in WP:BAND. RachelTensions (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS states "Genre-specific digital song sales and streaming songs charts should not be included unless a song did not chart on the respective all-genre Digital Song Sales or Streaming Songs charts and the genre's "hot" chart." so in these circumstances it is an acceptable chart. The better Naver ref is here, and there is significant coverage in this Billboard article here, more coverage here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Chang

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

While I recognize Kazama has put a massive amount of work into this over the year, I think if anything when the dust settled it showed the real problem with the article: when trimmed down, there's nothing actually *said*. Unlike Michelle Chang where there is discussion about her as a Native American and representation within the Tekken series as well as gaming as a whole, Julia's reception is more rooted in "she's popular" and "fans wanted her back", with citations of players and not statements from reliable secondary sources themselves analyzing the character. The one source discussing Julia's cultural background and analyzing it is more because she's related to Michelle as that character's daughter.

I want to stress that again, a lot of work has been put into this article. But a WP:BEFORE, and what's here, both illustrate there's no meat on this bone and that was the case before he started working on this. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michelle Chang (Tekken), to whom the character is (fictionally) sufficiently connected. BD2412 T 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Alvernia High School (Jamaica)

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

No refs on the page for many years, nothing much found suggesting notability criteria have been met JMWt (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Jamaica. JMWt (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a few sources online and added them to the article when I saw this AfD, and have been waiting to see what other editors' views were. The school has existed for 99 years and evidently educates girls from some influential families, with at least one notable former student, Staceyann Chin. Safiya Sinclair, who didn't attend the school, mentions it in her memoir: "all the brightest girls either went to Montego Bay High School or Mount Alvernia High School". Because of these factors, I'd be surprised if there were not references in offline sources, memoirs, local history, that we are just not finding online. Tacyarg (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sobat District

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

Poorly sourced essay-like article. I tried sending this to draftspace, but it was moved immediately back to mainspace by the author. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Egypt, and Sudan. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Valid topic for which there are reliable sources, but needs proper inline citations. Mccapra (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for improvement per previous. There are good results for this topic on JSTOR and Google Scholar, but the article isn't mainspace-ready yet. Left guide (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Nile Region from 1882 under Anglo-Egyptians Military Rule with Civil Colonial Natives Administrations

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

Poorly sourced essay-like article. I tried sending this to draftspace, but it was moved immediately back to mainspace by the author. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Egypt. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Valid topic for which there are reliable sources, but needs proper inline citations. Mccapra (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Mccapra and CycloneYoris have got it right, this is potentially a good topic, but currently the writing is somewhat in the style of a homework essay, and the referencing dodgy. Needs to be recast as an encyclopedic summary of some properly cited secondary sources. I'd urge the article's author to have a look at some good articles on similar topics, because they could do a really nice job here if they'd like to pursue it. Elemimele (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Amor

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reviews in reliable sources already present in the article as determined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of sources here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scars to Prove It

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Bastun has nominated nine Remedy Drive albums for deletion, all with the same non-descriptive rationale copy/pasted into each: "Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV." (The first nomination has slightly different syntax.) There is no evidence that a WP:BEFORE search, specific to each album, was done before this mass copy/paste operation. Some of the album articles have citations to reliable sources in the Christian music media, though others could be redirected to the band's article. That's already more variable evidence then given in these mass nominations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - not sure what you mean by "non-descriptive"? It's accurate. The albums have all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You should indicate why and how those policies were violated in the original nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally did that? Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV is clear, unambiguous and identifies the policies breached. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems good enough. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(I spread pro-Weezer propaganda)} 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is depressing. Vague nominations combatted by vague stances. Come on, do better. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, Babysharkboss2, you've participated in AFDs before. A Keep based on your first impressions of an article will be ignored by a closer. You need to be specific about sources (WHICH sources, too) and whether they establish notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's a bit more on this one too. As I said on the nomination for Imago Amor, the reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the albums WikiProject source list at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES#Christian music defers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources for judging source reliability in this topic area and I see in-depth significant coverage of this album from publications deemed reliable in that list: CCM Magazine, Jesus Freak Hideout, and Louder Than the Music, in addition to The Review. Left guide (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Sherlock

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

Run of the mill everyday person that has played in a handful of bands with no particular suitable redirect target. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Australia. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Current sourcing is stuff that can't be used for notability, like band's own page, facebook, youtube. Cannot tell if this guy passes any of the WP:NMUSICIAN checks either such as charting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to try and find sources for this guy. He was in one of the best-selling heavy metal bands in Australia, at the peak of their popularity, so there's probably stuff out there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whelp. There's lots of stuff about the bands he's in/been in, but little about him. I suspect there's probably print mentions in magazines or newspapers, but that's going to be difficult to dig through.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something establishes him notable for himself, I say he's not notable. This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. from WP:INHERITORG Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's why I'm not counting that coverage of the bands he's been in, because that would be more appropriate for the requisite articles. I do see that an HM interview is referenced, but not cited, in the article. I'll try and see if I can access that. If it's an interview of "him", that would help towards individual notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Provisional) Keep vote~~, because there's an HM interview with/profile of him in existence. It needs to be accessed and cited, but accessibility doesn't determine notability, the coverage need only *exist*.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Ah, it's accessible online: here it is--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, found it. here I think interview with the subject can be used to verify information about the subject but obviously, words from the subject is not independent, so I question its value for conferring notability, which requires secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that he's covered in an interview by an independent reliable source would confer notability, but it's just one source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything else. HM mentioned back in 2008 that he doesn't do media appearances, so that one source might be all that there is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent sources hence fail WP:GNG and WP:Notability for musician (I can't find any traces of a major award)Tesleemah (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSICBIO#6. Prominent member of Mortification, Paramaecium and Horde (only member). The later is an obvious merge target if people want to ignore the notability guidelines which seems to be the norm these days. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BANDMEMBER, he needs coverage about him specifically in order to be notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can actually read what BANDMEMBER says and not tell us porkies. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Every band Sherlock has been in is definitely notable, no question. But, and I was surprised at this, so far it appears there's one source, mentioned above, that is about him specifically rather than a band he's part of. Horde was a one-man-band in studio, true, but that's technically separate and any info about that would be duplicated between the band article and this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band). He was in multiple bands, but the article on Mortification is the only one with any meaningful information on him and it seems to be his most prominent role, with a lot of the sources that discuss him mentioning that as his most notable aspect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that redirect. There are pages of search results with RS coverage about his work in Horde. Horde also was comprised solely of Sherlock for the studio recording. There is plenty of information about him that could go into that article if it was developed more. Plus, there's also a lot of coverage of Revulsed. And that's not to mention his work in Paramaecium (~~which he was a member of longer than Mortification~~) and Deliverance. There's too many significant bands that could be the target of a redirect. If one was to be prioritized, Horde would be the most reasonable, imo, because it was a solo project.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about del for now, but just create redirect later or discuss it in one one of the target page? It's not like it takes more than a few secs to make a redirect. Graywalls (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Freeman (disambiguation)

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

There is only one Elizabeth Freeman, as well as an Elisabeth Freeman. Betty, Beth and Elise are not named either Elizabeth or Elisabeth. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current hatnotes are enough to avoid any confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was trivially easy to find additional subjects, Elizabeth Freeman (professor) and Elizabeth Rose Freeman, meriting inclusion in the disambiguation page, which is now of reasonable length. I would also note, however, that should generally be acceptable to include common diminutive forms (such as "Liz" or "Beth" here, or "Bob" for "Robert", or "Chuck" for "Charles") because even if it is not the subject's real name, readers might be expected to assume the diminutive and look for the longer form. BD2412 T 16:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, BD2412, as I know from experience, having had an aunt whose real name was "Betty". JBW (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several entries, and similar ambiguous ones too. Nothing to be gained from deletion. Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the time when this deletion nomination was made the page disambiguated 6 people, and it now disambiguates 8, making it potentially helpful. As explained above, a disambiguation page can be useful for distinguishing people with names which are not the same but which could be confused, as well as for disambiguating people with identical names. However, even if we ignore that consideration, there are currently three entries for people named exactly "Elizabeth Freeman", so the page is fully justified. (Incidentally, it probably takes less time to search and find that there are articles about other Elizabeth Freemans than it does to create a deletion discussion.) JBW (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Baba Bhag Singh University

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

The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for educational institutions. Sant Baba Bhag Singh University lacks significant academic achievements, industry recognition, or research contributions to justify a dedicated article. The content is overly promotional, with honorific language suggesting it may have been authored by an individual affiliated with the university. Furthermore, the cited sources are either critical of the university’s legitimacy or do not contribute to establishing its notability. Previous attempts to address these issues through WP:PROD were removed without resolution. VeritasVanguard (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Punjab. GrabUp - Talk 03:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The University lacks SIGCOV sources, which fails it to meet WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Also, no appropriate redirect target found so no WP:ATD. GrabUp - Talk 03:55, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully accredited degree issuing University recognized by the University Grants Commission (India) added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards: Could you please specify any guideline that states being a ‘fully accredited, degree-issuing university recognized by the University Grants Commission (India)’ makes a university notable? I don’t see any. WP:NSCHOOL clearly states that it requires WP:SIGCOV coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources—to meet notability criteria, and the sources you provided are not significant at all. GrabUp - Talk 05:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Recognition by UGC India do not make them notable. as mentioned by @GrabUp this university fails to meet much of the guidelines/criteria of Wikipedia. VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that source you add must be reliable and should not be paid. Small News Reporting services usually are paid. VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, need to improve UzbukUdash (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash: Why are you low-effort voting on multiple AfDs without providing guideline-specific arguments? How do you think this article meets notability? Please clarify. GrabUp - Talk 05:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UGC provided doc that confirmed the official prove that this institution exists from 2017, can check 0902037_SANT-BABA-BHAG-ANNEX2.pdf pass Notability. the text in the body is not efficient in my opinion need to elaborate thats why I'm focusing on IMPROVE. thanks UzbukUdash (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash: First, read WP:NSCHOOL. Institutes are not inherently notable just because they exists; it needs to have in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet notability. GrabUp - Talk 06:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash Looks like you are not familiar with the concept of Notability being discussed here. Please see Wikipedia:Notability & Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

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

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [13][14]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing "weak" from my delete, as I find the delete votes below more compelling than the keep votes. For GNG, I still find the one NPR piece to contribute somewhat to notability, but the rest seems to me like passing mentions, and I don't think it is enough. No sign whatsoever of NAUTHOR notability, minimal (and arrested) progress towards NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this the same person: [15]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [16], [17], [18]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Maddie Sofia (January 14, 2020). "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave" (Podcast). NPR. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
2. ~~Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.~~
3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
5. Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...

I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source.

So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, opinion pieces are considered primary regardless of what they're covering or who they're by. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that.

Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [19], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a no consensus, which is still my read, but following a request I have decided to relist it because consensus is preferable to kicking this down the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not looked into rest of evidence but I agree with David Eppstein that there is not a pass of PROF by citation profile here. Looking at the alphabetisation of the list of Nature paper authors Neeley does not seem to be more than a very minor contributor, and the other moderately cited papers do not meet my expectations. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not meet the criteria of WP:NPROF, and there is no significant of her or her work that would satisfy WP:GNG. The accumulation of several quotes as an expert in good outlets is a start, but I don't see it as being enough to overcome the lack of other significant sources. Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time's a charm?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UzbukUdash (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UzbukUdash, AFDs aren't a vote, please present an argument to support your opinion, based on policy and your assessment of the sources. Otherwise, your opinion is likely to be dismissed by the discussion closer. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, the subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. There isn't any WP:SIGCOV and many of the sources are WP:PRIMARY. The NPR podcasts fall into the category of WP:PRIMARY and thus do not contribute to WP:GNG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Durning

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

WP:BIO1E the only reason this article exists is because of the allegations of sexual abuse: [20] no notability otherwise and coverage is more about the Catholic Church's role than Durning himself Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE for now UzbukUdash (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hunt

AfDs for this article:

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

He is a notable character, but that doesn't stop him from being notable. Of all the sources, none are reliable, they are either passing mentions, film reviews, or interviews and don't really talk about the character itself. Luther Stickell suffers the same thing, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luther Stickell. The first nomination was closed a keep, and years later, it isn't fixed. If it's still like this, i would recommend a redirect to either List of Mission: Impossible characters or Tom Cruise. Toby2023 (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toby2023He is a notable character, but that doesn't stop him from being notable. Can you clarify? As for reliability of the sources, have another look please; at least two substantial sources seem perfectly acceptable. Coverage about the character in books and reviews can be considered enough. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also inviting other users to read the 1st AfD. It was a clear Keep decision and generally notability does not disappear with time. What you mention seems to be mere cleanup issues and AfDs are not for cleanup. Feel free to add the sources identified in the first debate to the page if you think the state of the article is an issue.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or DRAFT, Need more relevant sourcing im sure its there UzbukUdash (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lack of a valid nominator rationale and sourcing was established in the last AfD. Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, so I don't see how article quality effects subject notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any AfD nomination that fails to find a prior nomination and engage with the sources brought up in that discussion is not sufficient to start a legitimate discussion. We could speedy keep on that basis, or keep because notability was established previously and ask the nominator to go incorporate those sources into the article. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medford, Indiana

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

The county history cited calls it a rail station with a post office, which is what the maps show as well. There was no town here. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A 1973 Delaware County, Indiana ordinance calls it the "Town of Medford", and there are a few scattered, mostly unreliable mentions of it, e.g. an obituary, "Barb attended a Seagoing Cowboys celebration in Medford, Indiana, during Heifer's 70th anniversary in 2014.", "Barth, a Medford, Indiana, manufacturer of recreation and commercial vehicles" (p. 42), 1979. Not much to go by, but apparently it is or was a community. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Clarityfiend's research above. Also, I did a copy and paste of the above to the article talk page - just in cases it passes here, and gets renominated at a later date. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I have not found a reliable source saying "people lived here", I did find the town plat, and also came across obituaries and stuff like that. Google streetview shows a bunch of houses there too. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with these zoning maps and plats is that what's on the ground bears no particular resemblance to the streets and lots they paint. The plat in particular is so wrong that I cannot determine whether it represents land north or south of the road. likewise, while the zoning ruling at least contains some photography, what has actually happened in the intervening years is that of the area north of the road, the wedge adjacent to the RR RoW has been consolidated into a single property, everything east of that has lapsed back into farmland.I gather the point of the zoning was the consolidation of that land into residential land.

The point here is that there's no doubt in all of this that someone wanted a town here, apparently to the point of setting it up as far as land use was concerned. The substantial discrepancies between the legal definitions and the reality on the ground, however, indicate that the town is a legal fiction that was never realized. The plat in particular is pretty damning, as there is no evidence that any of the streets shown was ever constructed. A few houses along the main road were built, and some sort of business (which presumably was where this Barth was in later years) was built next to the tracks, but that appears to be it. Mangoe (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP UzbukUdash (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UzbukUdash, why? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This is a borderline case, but this place seems better-documented than most of these onetime rural post offices that made it into GNIS. If kept, the article needs to be rewritten, incorporating some of the sources listed above, and removing the "is an unincorporated community", implying the place currently has recognition as a community. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique

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

This article is predicated on misunderstanding a single gov.uk webpage. The claimed customs union does not exist and thus has no sources. Much of the page is false, and what is true is in no way notable. It would be equivalent to having a page titled "Canada and Mexico" because they are both parties to NAFTA. Peetel (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above, this appears to be a legal term used by the British government for a trade agreement and appears to have no other use or purpose. Not seeing independent RS showing that this has notability outside of the British trade agreement. JMWt (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Stickell

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

I don't think that this character is notable. This article has 10 sources, of all are not reliable and passing mentions. It was recently tagged for notability and there is no help at all. My WP:BEFORE failed to show anything about him. If he isn't fixed, i recommend a redirect to List of Mission: Impossible characters or at worse, Ving Rhames.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional characters. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mission: Impossible (film series) as an WP:ATD. The List of Mission: Impossible characters is for characters from the original TV series; it omits the late-80s revival let alone the film series. The film series article is a better redirect target. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC Northern Ireland

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

I could not find significant coverage when searching under short name or full name. The 2nd source is a 1 line mention in a book.

Also nominating CEWC-Cymru for similar reasons. Both articles fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Northern Ireland, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norton, Indiana

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

Appears to have been a rail point/station/PO. There's nothing there now and the 1910 county history doesn't mention it under either name. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information found. Appears to be just a road crossing of a railroad. Fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find any reference to this in old county maps or other records. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial elections

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

There is never going to be an objective criteria of "controversial election" defined by multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Even if we move to the more narrow "contested election" criteria, where only the outcome is in dispute, we still run into the problem of what counts as a dispute. Does a recount and a small protest mean an election counts as "contested" automatically? What is the scope of this page? I do not see how it would help to group national and subnational elections together. This page should be deleted and possibly converted into a category if we can agree on certain criteria. Bremps... 02:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Do not think controversial elections should be categorized as like this UzbukUdash (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impossibly broad, undefined category. List has no clear selection criteria. Most entries are unsourced. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 06:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All elections can be considered controversial through reliable sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Procyon117 (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not averse to deleting the current list, as its scope seems a bit arbitrary to me. But I think it would be possible to define proper criteria (for example, "multiple reliable sources have alleged that electoral fraud took place to an extent that changed the outcome"), and with good criteria the list would be a sensible break-out navigational list from Electoral fraud. As a navigational list, it shouldn't need independent referencing as it should only point to elections with their own articles, which already include referenced discussion of the controversy and fraud. Elemimele (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TECO Electric and Machinery

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

I believe fits the criteria to be deleted for multiple issues - primarily notability based on WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTADVERT. I made an effort to find references and could only find primary sources. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deleting this article. I have just updated the "External links" section. This is a Taiwan company doing business worldwide, so as the descriptions are detailed in its Chinese page, its Enlish page is brief. It must, however, is needed in English for people in other countries. In Wikipedia, don't be a "deletioniist", but be an "encourager" to let other people to participate in update, in order to make a "weak" article a better article. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshi Canopus, there are no sources for this article; the company's website cannot show notability. Do you have links to any sources that demonstrate this company is notable by Wikipedia standards? StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all I can find in a BEFORE is ordinary business activities. The article is completely unsourced and there is no sign of notability that I can find. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sun, Yun-suan (2006). 臺灣奇蹟推手: 孫運璿先生管理講座紀念文集 [Promoter of Taiwan's Miracle: A Collection of Commemorative Essays of Mr. Sun Yun-Chuang's Management Lectures] (in Chinese). Taipei: National Taiwan University Press [zh]. pp. 188–193. ISBN 978-986-00-7834-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.
  The book covers the company on six pages. The book notes: "在集團轉投資方面,東元近年來更展現了旺盛的企圖心,除了電子、電機、通訊之外,東元投資領域已經橫跨半導體、光電以及其他相關的關鍵零組件、通訊固網、網路軟件、流通餐飲等行業。在多年經營下,東元電機已由原來的重電、家電領域邁向全球化的高科技企業,從製造、行銷等多面向發展,建立起縱橫世界的國際品牌——TECO。"
  From Google Translate: "In terms of group reinvestment, TECO has shown strong ambition in recent years. In addition to electronics, motors, and communications, TECO’s investment areas have spanned semiconductors, optoelectronics, and other related key components, communications fixed lines, and networks. Road software, distribution catering and other industries. After years of operation, TECO has moved from its original heavy electrical and home appliance fields to a global high-tech enterprise, developing from manufacturing, marketing and other aspects, and established TECO, an international brand that spans the world."
2. Shelton, Paul (2024-05-07). "Taiwan's TECO Electric and Machinery faces proxy battle. Shareholder group demands change of management and core business focus". Taiwan News. Archived from the original on 2024-05-07. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "Taiwanese electronics conglomerate TECO Electric and Machinery Co. (TECO) is in the middle of a proxy battle ahead of its upcoming annual general meeting on May 24. Eugene Huang (黃育仁), the grandson of TECO founder Lin Ho-yin (林和引), has released his vision for the company’s future with the launch of the FutureTECO campaign. Huang, whose father Theodore Huang was chair for many years but resigned from his board seat in 2021, has asked shareholders to support his eight nominees for TECO’s board at the upcoming general meeting. ... Founded in 1956 as an industrial motor manufacturer, TECO has evolved into a major business group, spanning heavy electric equipment, home appliances, information technology, communications, electronic components and parts, infrastructural engineering, financial investment, dining, and services."
3. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2021-07-23). Wu, Ting-yun 吳廷勻; Wang, Li-hua 王儷華 (eds.). "東元之爭》父子惡鬥、家事變公事　15萬股民權益在哪裡？" [TECO Battle》Father and son fight fiercely, family affairs turn into business affairs. Where are the rights of 150,000 shareholders?]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-12. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "東元集團黃茂雄、黃育仁父子經營權之爭，因為疫情進入2個月的延長賽，終於畫下暫時的逗點。"
  From Google Translate: "The dispute between the father and son of TECO Group Huang Maoxiong and Huang Yuren for management rights has finally come to a temporary end after entering a two-month extension due to the epidemic."
  The article notes: "這是一門代價不小的家族傳承及公司治理課。東元股東會投票結果，只是另一個開始。兩方公開收購戰還在進行，未來，東元電機必須更努力證明，自己仍是連續7年公司治理評鑑前5％的模範生。"
  From Google Translate: "This is a costly lesson in family inheritance and corporate governance. The voting result of TECO's shareholders' meeting is just another beginning. The public takeover battle between the two parties is still ongoing. In the future, TECO Electric must work harder to prove that it is still a model student in the top 5% of corporate governance evaluations for seven consecutive years."
4. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2024-09-11). Hong, Jia-ning 洪家寧 (ed.). "銀行教父如何改造傳產老店？專訪東元新董事長利明献「我來危機管理」". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "去年是東元業績最好的一年，去年毛利率創下七年新高，營收和EPS也刷新史上紀錄，財務健全、負債比率低，無庸置疑是一家營運穩健的公司。但過去這幾年，也是東元經營權紛爭最多的時期，父子反目的戲碼比八點檔還好看，吸住全民的注意力。現在經營權之爭已休戰，東元由華新麗華焦家、寶佳兩大股東共治的局勢落定，利明献認為，中長期來看，過去紛擾必定對品牌以及軍心有所影響，東元現在急需一個能扭轉態勢的掌舵者。"
  From Google Translate: "Last year was TECO's best performance year. Last year's gross profit margin hit a seven-year high, and revenue and EPS also set new historical records. With sound finances and a low debt ratio, there is no doubt that it is a company with stable operations. But the past few years have also been the period of most disputes over TECO's management rights. The drama about father and son's rebellion is even better than the 8 o'clock show, attracting the attention of the whole people. Now that the dispute over management rights has come to an end, TECO is now governed by the two major shareholders, Walsin Lihua Jiao Family and Baojia. Lee Ming-hsien believes that in the medium to long term, the past turmoil will definitely have an impact on the brand and military morale. TECO There is an urgent need for a leader who can turn the situation around."
5. Zhang, Rui-yi 張瑞益 (2023-05-03). "東元永續績效國際肯定榮獲MSCI AA評級列全球同業前15% 生產據點全都通過ISO 14000環保認證" [TECO's sustainable performance is recognised internationally Won the MSCI AA rating and ranked among the top 15% of global peers. All production sites have passed ISO 14000 environmental certification.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "東元電機是國內推動ESG相當積極且有成的企業，根據國際知名評比MSCI（Morgan Stanley Capital International）ESG Rating最新發布的2023年4月評比報告，東元再進一級，由A級升等為AA級，永續發展績效評比成績為全球同業中的前15%。MSCI在報告中指出，東元董事會運作良善，董事獨立性符合投資人期待；而東元全球的生產據點皆通過ISO 14000環保認證，為業界翹楚。"
  From Google Translate: "TECO Electric is a very active and successful company in promoting ESG in China. According to the latest April 2023 rating report released by the internationally renowned MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) ESG Rating, TECO has moved up a level and been upgraded from Grade A. It is rated AA and ranks in the top 15% of its global peers in terms of sustainable development performance. MSCI pointed out in the report that TECO's board of directors operates well and the director's independence meets investors' expectations; TECO's global production sites have all passed ISO 14000 environmental certification and are among the best in the industry."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TECO Electric and Machinery (traditional Chinese: 東元電機; simplified Chinese: 东元电机) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a closer look at the articles you provided. Thanks for compiling them, I did not find a single one myself. However, I do not believe that these articles merit sufficient coverage. The (first two) articles by Taiwan News and CommonWealth Magazine aren't primarily about the company TECO itself. They portray the recent leadership battle around TECO. According to the notability guidelines sources must provide "Significant coverage of the company itself". Furthermore, there are other problems with the articles concerning the notability guidelines:

Multiple articles by one organization listed as one source:

1.Taiwan News: The article has been written by Contributing Writer Paul Shelton and is therefore not clearly independent or reliable. Furthermore, as the article mainly repeats the statements of parties involved in the leadership battle and only gives little, already publicly available information (Members of the board, short history, vague description of present TECO), it is probably churnalism.(see WP:ORIGIND)

2.CommonWealth Magazine: The "TECO's Father-Son Struggle, Family Matters Turned Into Public Matters..." article probably meets the criteria for a usable source. The other article, however, is about an entirely different person switching to TECO. The article itself briefly mentions TECO, but does not discuss it in depth.

3.United Daily News: The article is very short and probably only trivial coverage. Furthermore, it only lists awards that TECO got, does not go into any depth and reads like promotion.

Conclusion: I beleive that your third suggestion (first long article by CommonWealth) is the only article that can be used to asses the notability of TECO. However, a single source is not enough and the article is not entirely on topic as well. I have, however, not looked at your first suggestion (the book excerpt) yet. Rajix4 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider all of these sources to contribute to notability. Regarding the Taiwan News article, that Paul Shelton is a contributing writer does not detract from the article's reliability. The source covers a leadership struggle in the company and includes secondary analysis ("However, the FutureTECO campaign has an uphill battle ahead of it.") Coverage of a leadership struggle in a company is coverage of the company. The article is functionally independent of the company. Both articles in CommonWealth Magazine provide significant of TECO. The second article does not briefly mention TECO; it mentions the company's name "東元" 41 times. Regarding the United Daily News article, I cited it because it verifies that TECO was covered in an April 2023 report by MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) which strongly contributes to notability. The book excerpt strongly establishes notability because TECO is covered on six pages. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Melts Cube

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

Unreleased track. No reliable sources provided, only citations from "Lost Media Wiki" which is an unreliable user generated site; and there's no concrete evidence of the song's existence. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I searched and couldn't find any evidence that this topic has been picked up by reliable sources. Left guide (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I also found nothing additional. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, agreed with @Left guide UzbukUdash (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say, DJ Speed (Eazy-E Afilliate) confirms as well as DJ Yella (Producer) Which proved existence. If people did research as much as I did, they would know, I also know… in interview, Eazy-E Refers to the diss. Lost Wiki page had the most info which is reliable despite being User Friendly. Also includes sources, just alike Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.20.155.153 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@216.20.155.153:

Existence ≠ notability. Songs must meet WP:NSONG to merit a standalone article.
Wikis are not reliable sources because they are self-published and lack editorial review.
Interviews are primary sources and cannot establish notability.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't buy the "DJ Yella confirmed the existence of this track" argument. If you listen to the interview (linked to in the Lost Media Wiki article), he just says that there's one instrumental that he has with no Eazy-E lyrics on it that might have been reserved for an Ice Cube diss track and he doesn't want to speculate much further. The whole article is based on speculation and is potentially misleading since it makes a number of unverified, and probably unverifiable, assertions. For instance, where is there any solid(ish) evidence that this supposed track is called "Heat Melts Cube"? The sourcing is horrendous : Lost Media Wiki is obviously unreliable. Pichpich (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguni (district)

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

Subject does not meet GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NPLACE. Noah ^💬 00:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but the subject not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria or NPLACE and in addition NPLACE does not supersede GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. This seems like an incredibly arbitrary AfD, there are hundreds of thousands of places that fail GNG but are included on Wikipedia because they pass NPLACE. Noah ^💬 02:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Again NPLACE does not supersede GNG and to pass either one they sources of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources (IRS) need to be provided for verification.. Articles about places that fails GNG and is in the main space is because no one/editor yet to AfD the articles and it is NOT because they are in main space means they pass GNG. Thousand of article that fail GNG or SNG are in Wikipedia and they always CAN be AfD if anyone nominate them in regardless how long the articles in main space Wikipedia. There might be other languages have IRS about the place which I dont know know those languages, but if anyone can find them then add them in the article and let me know.05:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep passes WP:NPLACE. Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Quick google search can easily found multiple independent coverage of this district. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems that, according to WP:NPLACE, GNG only matters in this evaluation if the article subject is not a legally recognized place. While gov sites might not establish notability, if they verify that this subject is legally recognized, then I think the editors arguing Keep have the stronger argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an official local government area, and we routinely keep those even when, as in this case, they’re new (2010) and somewhat obscure. Not speaking Bahasa Indonesia is a hindrance with this but I did find a scholarly paper entitled “INTERNATIONAL SCALE INTEGRATED THEMATIC TOURISM DESTINATION DESIGN, KOKAS DISTRICT AND ARGUNI DISTRICT IN FAKFAK DISTRICT” , multiple references to it in this article, some coverage in thus study and will add other sources if I find them. Mccapra (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dušica Bijelić

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

Article is cited almost entirely to non-independent sources; mainly to theaters employing the subject. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the roles currently listed in the article are all insignificant comprimario parts. We need to see better more significant roles, and those roles covered in independent sources, to pass WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the subject's roles and the ensembles they've performed in c6 of wp:Musicbio might apply in which case WP:SIGCOV may exist. Therefore, I would explore WP:AFT before taking a position.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need more participants here. I'm not sure what WP:AFT has to do with this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mass

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

This individual fails WP:ANYBIO and has done so since perhaps 2010. No apparent (nor significant) coverage by any unrelated party. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Maybe the thinnest BLP I've ever seen here! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find anything that tells me this attorney is still active. This attorney has a very lengthy 2011 internet page about himself - personal background listings that have not much to do with being an attorney. The kind of person a town would be proud to have. But his legal "Experience" section is very scant and doesn't tell us much except others he previously worked for or with. An internet search doesn't bring up anything more recent. — Maile (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom UzbukUdash (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mass is still active (the fellow's not yet fifty), and is a political figure in the rural county in which I lived for several years. Further, the article used to be a lot more extensive before rampant page blanking by anon IPs. With that, I doubt many people beyond the city limits of Greenfield, Massachusetts have heard of him, nor that he could meet the GNG. Ravenswing 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People in politics aren't "inherently" notable just for existing, so the article's current form is obviously deeply inadequate if it just says that he exists and fails to even specify what political position he ever actually held in the first place — Ravenswing is correct that it's been longer in the past, but that history has him serving only at the municipal and county levels, which is not a free notability pass in the absence of much, much more reliable source coverage about the impact of that work than the article has ever shown. So there's no prior version of this that could be reverted to as a solution, because nothing that was ever in the article before satisfies the requirements of WP:NPOL either. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and Ravenswing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]