Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      August 8 (Thu)      August 7 (Wed)      August 6 (Tue)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Tyson Burmeister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. Google news yields 2 third party sources from Manchester Evening News, but it's rather routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, United States of America, and California. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, yield same result for me no WP:SIGCOV for the guy Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I searched for reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject, but found only passing mentions, which fail to meet WP:SIGCOV, WP:NSPORT, and obviously WP:GNG. The currently cited sources are primary. GrabUp - Talk 12:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of disparaging nicknames for settlements in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Scope is vague and due to the nature of the article it attracts unsourced information to be added (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (disclaimer: major contributor). If the scope is vague, propose a move instead. If it attracts unsourced editing, that is not a reason to delete a page. See WP:BEFORE, Point C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Normal editing can fix the unsourced additions concern since undoing edits and rolling back to revisions are core embedded features to both Wikipedia and its extensions like Twinkle and RedWarn. Lack of will to work on a page is not a reason to delete it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NLIST. The best, almost the only, list I can find is The 5 Best North Texas City Nicknames (and Some of the Worst). (Ranker ["The Funniest Negative Nicknames for US Cities"] doesn't count since they rank all sorts of stuff that isn't notable.) Also, universities aren't settlements. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll just take one example I am personally familiar with: "Los Anchorage" for Anchorage, Alaska. Yes, those of us that live in more rural areas use this term dispairingly for people who move to Alaska just to live in an urban nightmare. However the source [1] is just the article's headline, the nickname is not the subject of the article. Seems like most of the sources are of this nature. This is just trivia, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Trivia" about sums it up. Qwirkle (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This appears to be spin-out of List of disparaging nicknames for settlements. There is potential to either smerge this back, or delete the parent list as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of disparaging nicknames for settlements: very selectively, for entries that are well-sourced. The topic doesn't justify being spun-off the original list, nor expanded to the degree it has been. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. It’s marginally notable, but a combined list makes sense. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Delete, Merge and Keep. We need to come to a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per InvadingInvader. Who cares if it is trivia? At worst it can be merged. I don't know what genuine benefit it gives to ask whether there is a WP:LISTN source for specifically disparaging place names in the United States -- either it's too big to be in the main article and it should stay out, or it fits into the main article and it should be spun back into it. But the stuff I see here has sources and I don't really see a great argument for why it needs to go, other than it's bad in some nebulous way. jp×g🗯️ 06:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. I question the accuracy of this, especially the ones not sourced. Just because someone may have blurted out these names, does not make them valid. A lot of this is just childish stuff, sourced or not. — Maile (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NLIST as "List of disparaging nicknames for settlements in the United States" is not notable as a group. There has been insufficient discussion of the set in reliable sources which establishes its notability as a set. Also delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As I noted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disparaging nicknames for settlements, that list was created to solve a specific problem at WP:RFD. That doesn't mean it's untouchable, but I believe that history should be taken into account. I also strongly recommend potential closers closely coordinate this discussion with the other. Avoid nonsensical outcomes (e.g., keep this but delete the parent) or time-wasters (e.g., merge this, then delete the parent). --BDD (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. If the disparaging nickname isn't noteworthy enough to warrant mention in the article (and thus require a redirect to a placeholder article) then it has no any actual connection to the topic. We don't need to collect them here unless there are sources that show this grouping itself to be notable. czar 14:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Al Abdooli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability guidelines, and there are no reliable, independent sources to verify its notability. فيصل (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Available sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or WP:PRESSRELEASE-based news articles. The only example of independent WP:SIGCOV I found is here, and we would need multiple examples to clear WP:GNG. Not seeing a separate pass on WP:NBIO. If additional sources are found, please ping me to evaluate and reconsider. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. As Dclemens1971 wrote above, there are some mentions, such as this one. They are mostly about his role in Etisalat though, so a merge with that article makes sense to me. --Alan Islas (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm OK with a redirect but I don't think it makes sense to merge any substantial content (beyond what's already present there) from a BLP into an article about a corporation he was formerly affiliated with. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strangers Helping Strangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Eighteen years without a source on the page for this local charity is enough. A Google news search yields only passing mentions of the organization, and uses of the common phrase in other contexts. BD2412 T 22:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Vermont. BD2412 T 22:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 18 years is too long of a grace period Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Razakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems more like a dictionary definition than a notable article. LR.127 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to disambiguation page. There are three other articles about terms with this word as their title (or at least whose title could generally be shortened to this word informally) and one more specific use that can point to an article, so I think it's a useful navigation tool. But I agree that there does not appear to be enough to say about this term itself to merit an article. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting for the record and anyone else who is just joining the discussion, User:Buidhe converted it to a DAB while this discussion was pending. I have invited them to comment here. DMacks (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given they have so-far declined, I assume that would be considered to be a !vote "dabify" (their edit-summary, with no further explanation). DMacks (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the last good version (before it was converted into a disambiguation page - an unhelpful edit). There's nothing wrong with it: per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, it's not just dictionary definitions, and has useful links to appropriate articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While there's nothing wrong with having an article about a word in general, this article did not seem to have anything beyond dictionary-def content and the defined items and links to articles using that term. To me, that looks MOS:WTLINK plus DAB-list. like Is there more to say about this whole concept or word, as the unified concept or word? The next step up from a Disambiguation page is a Set Index Article. Using the SIA decision guideline (WP:SETNOTDAB), this article is all "Similar names", so it's not a regular article, but instead a SIA vs DAB depending on whether they are all "Similar subjects". DMacks (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation: I agree with DMacks; I think it is best to keep it as a disambiguation page. GrabUp - Talk 12:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Carole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreleased (although premiered at a minor film festival) French film. Per WP:SNG WP:NFF, unreleased films are not notable unless their production is notable, which is not the case here John B123 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. John B123 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft. No controversy here. BD2412 T 22:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity per WP:TOOSOON and wait for the release to determine the notability Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ridiculous nomination for deletion. The film has been publicly released and the article is very well sourced with a variety of reliable sources, satisfying WP:TOOSOON AND WP:NFF handily. Numerous news articles from a variety of outlets have discussed the film's production and release, several of which are used as sources in the article. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• DRAFTIFY, not released, despite the preceding comment. Should be in draft until its actual release and reviews can be obtained. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite YOUR comment, the film has been released. Publicly screened at film festivals=released. A film article need not have reviews of the film to be "worthy" of being on Wikipedia, see for example the hundreds and hundreds of pages for upcoming films that by definition have no reviews yet. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, so it premiered at a festival. Then it needs to pass WP:NFILM, which says it needs 2 reviews. It has none. So, my statement of draft until WIDE release stands. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NFILM does NOT say a film page needs 2 reviews. What you are pointing to is literally labeled "Other evidence of notability", as in "aside from the the means of establishing notability outlined above, these various means CAN also be used to establish notability, not MUST be used". Happy Evil Dude (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It either needs to satisfy WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. As as already pointed to you, it fails GNG: Does not meet WP:GNG, available coverage is limited to trivial pre-release PR; at most we have one article noting that it wrapped filming which might include significant coverage (paywalled, can't verify). --John B123 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is tiring. It satisfies BOTH WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, as has been demonstrated to you numerous times by both myself and User:Mushy Yank. You quoting another editor that performed an abusive unjustified unilateral article deletion does not change that fact. The fact the 13 sources quoted in the article amount to one paywalled article is a blatant lie. Article contains references to Variety, Screen International and several Belgian national news sources, among others. The film has wrapped filming, has screened at several film festivals, has received significant coverage, the article contains numerous reliable secondary sources,... Enough. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you read the guidelines on behaviour in discussions. Calling another editor's actions abusive and their comments a blatant lie is not acceptable. --John B123 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: released, although not yet distributed in film theaters, very notable cast, has received coverage about production and will be reviewed when distributed for Christmas. All content is verifiable. But this is obviously notable, there is indeed no question of it. More available online. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging editors who have previously edited the article in an attempt to widen the discussion; @Bovineboy2008, Rosguill, Eopsid, and Rich Farmbrough: --John B123 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft - significant coverage is entirely absent from the citations, with the sole possible exception of the content behind the paywall in the rtbf.be article. I'm inclined to assume the best of the source, but even then we're nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. The keep arguments thus far are entirely unconvincing and appear to take press releases from film festivals and rote statements that a film is in production to be significant coverage; they aren't. We need to see analysis and commentary on the production decisions, and/or critical evaluation of the film. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnotable school does not satisfy WP:GNG, some editor decided to remove PROD with no improvements what so ever. N niyaz (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just to clarify the timeline here, the article was deleted on July 13 after User:N niyaz's PROD expired. User:Auyongcheemeng made an undeletion request, saying this is one of the few schools that predates the founding of Malaysia, and the request was fulfilled on July 17, restoring the article. The PROD tag was correctly removed by an admin as part of the undeletion process. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bsoyka Unfortunately being 'one of the few schools that predates the founding of Malaysia' does not explain its failure in satisfying WP:GNG. For your information, there are thousands of schools that predates Malaysia's independence. And unless this school is a high achieving school which is rare, I don't see the school showing any significance. N niyaz (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. It was not that few for the number of schools during that time. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one example a mission school set up by missionaries in the early days in pre-Malaysia days, not that 'rare' yes, but they are getting there. In the current and foreseeable future of political climate and increasing Islamisation of Malaysia the number of these type of schools are on the decline (462 nationwide, 227 in peninsular Malaysia in 2011 ^[1] down to 420 nationwide, 191 in peninsular Malaysia in 2024 ^[2]. [Not that many of these schools have wiki pages written]. These schools have contributed in the Malaysia's early days as a nation to produce current and former leaders/notable persons. [Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School] is no exception (see its list of alumni). Not many schools among the 10,000+ currently operating schools in Malaysia can attest to that. Bukit Bintang Girls' School (also was a mission school, but sadly no longer exists) a sister school involved in its founding of BBBSS has its wiki page preserved.C.M. Au Yong (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my earlier reasoning for this page to remain, being: historical and a pre-Malaysia school that has contributed to the early nation-building.C.M. Au Yong (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The facts of significance you provided deserve a place at article such as Education in Malaysia instead of this school. The school is not inherent of notability because it has early contribution to humanities as a missionary establishment per WP:ORGSIG. The school is not inheritable of notability because it has notable alumni per WP:INHERITORG.

Issue with this article is the history and other notable events sections fails to WP:PROVEIT with reliable sources. Other part could be just WP:MILL content. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sections that doesn't have verifiable/sources should be removed those cases, not an outright entire page removal. It doesn't help the case that the name "Bukit Bintang" is extremely SEO unfriendly as a casual web search with those terms will refer to "Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur" the tourist spot, instead of the school. There are sources out there but they aren't electronic accessible/one dead trees for the most part/or buried in older web archives.C.M. Au Yong (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is just barely some digital traces that remain to this day, eg. mentioned in passing: BBBS & BBGS as major mission schools in the country in its day^[3]. C.M. Au Yong (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume removing them would leave nothing much left. A search at https://search.nlb.gov.sg/onesearch/Search?query=%22bukit+bintang+boys%22&cont=newspaper showing newspapers but irrelevant to article. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being a mission school does not address the issue whatsoever, 420 or 191 is a big number to start with. Some of the sources cited in the article are also press releases and/or paid materials. And for your information, the enwiki is not for personal blogging and since it is the most spoken language it should be more stricter than mswiki. N niyaz (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of schools in Selangor. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear more opinions. Also, editors, please sign all of your comments in an AFD discussion so that other editors know whose opinion they are. We shouldn't have to look at the page history to find this out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(420 or 191) Of that number not many have wikipedia pages (see List of missionary schools in Malaysia), the ones that do is rather incomplete/or not much to begin with (like Ong Kai Jin, has mentioned, not "much left"). They all need significant work. As for personal blogging comment (I have been on Wikipedia long enough to be aware of that, far longer than both of you persons commenting), I agree that some edits need not be in there. (I believe that's because of the comments, asking for school news updates on the article's talk pages).

Remember that most of these school wiki pages are likely came to be/created/edited by students or staff (during their years there). They likely don't monitor the pages unless they are a frequent/semi-frequent contributor with an up-to-date account on Wikipedia, If they aren't regulars they are even more so unaware of Wikipedia's editing/writing article standards. (So that's a really low bar to getting school articles deleted without much contest)

The school's article certainly does not satisfy Wikipedia's definition of 'notability', as it does not have easily verifiable records in the digital age. There hasn't been much coverage on the school in recent years.

I have said all I wanted despite the school's lack of notability according to WP:GNG, the school is notable to the general public in its time of founding among other notable schools of its time along the likes of Victoria Institution, Methodist Boys' School, Kuala Lumpur and should remain like its sister school Bukit Bintang Girls' School. As the school's alumni, I'll say, "Nisi Dominus Frustra". I'm done here, there is only so much one person can do to convince anyone. C.M. Au Yong (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say that the newspapers of English-medium and Malay-medium in the country lacked representing voice on the development of the schools. See WP:SBEXT. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, your account although older than ours, your sole purpose of creating that account is to edit the article mentioned which most probably means you have a WP:COI. Also notability CAN NOT be brief, unless the subject receives significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per my standards at User:Bearian/Standards. Specifically, it’s over 65 years old, has several major alumni, and otherwise passes GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. Limited coverage but Douglas and Pederson, andRoxborough et al, and the Star push it over the line. Plus I am guessing there are sources in Malay and/or Chinese I don't have the ability to review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A search of “武吉免登男中” OR “武吉免登国中” OR “武吉免登中学” on Google showed some newspapers in Chinese mentioning the school but did not discuss on the school,^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} and this newspaper in Malay also.^[7] Ong Kai Jin (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Jukic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; Scopus shows 39 documents with H-factor of 16 in a field known for frequent citations. The article was created by a new single-purposes account that seems to be working through the executive committee of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology over the last few days (fruir of the poisonous tree) and seems to have hit their early (or mid) career member. Lacks independent sources or sufficiently notable prizes; editorial board membership is insufficient. Klbrain (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, and Serbia. C F A 💬 20:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a very high citation field so although his citation record on Google Scholar shows four triple-digit citation counts I think that is not enough for a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1, and there seems nothing else that would provide evidence notability. Organizational work for a professional organization (ECNP) would only count for that if he headed the entire organization. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Young and very intelectual individual but does not really meet the requirement for article on Wikipedia. Боки ☎ ✎ 18:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Qflib (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Noer (Pacitan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Biography of a person, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. The attempted notability claim is that he was involved in the creation of mosques in a village, which is in no way an automatic notability freebie without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it, but the only "source" here just tangentially verifies the existence of the region the subject lived in without ever once mentioning his name at all, and thus clearly isn't about him for the purposes of helping to get him over GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article was created by a user who is now blocked because they poorly mass-translated articles from other Wikipedias in an apparent effort to add spam links. See also: this thread at ANI Bsoyka (t • c • g) 15:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Zero sources found for this person, the one source used isn't quite good enough. I didn't even know where this person was from until the tag at the end of the article for "Indonesia stubs"; all kinds of issues with this article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as I couldn't find any sources for this person. Although there is a mosque named after him in Pacitan, which might indicate his local notability, there isn't much information available beyond that. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Without in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources, a subject can’t meet WP:GNG. I agree with the nominator that the subject is not inherently notable because of his works; notability requires verification and in-depth coverage from reliable sources, which the subject lacks. GrabUp - Talk 12:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Davey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the sources presently used establish notability (either due to not saying much about Davey, or not being RS, or not being independent), and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of Robin Davey in reliable sources, only mentions. There also seems to be COI editing in the history of the article, such as edits from User:Growvision01. toweli (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Photography, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Canary Effect. This film seems to be his greatest accomplishment, but I do not find sufficient sources about him to support an article. I agree with NOM that the sources in the article are very weak, and I didn't find anything better. Note that there are other Robin Davey's who show up in a search, mainly one who is an animator based in Berlin. I'm pretty sure that is a different person but I couldn't prove it. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead! (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As much as I would love to see more article about My Chemical Romance, I don't believe that this one fits the bill for notability per WP:NSONG. While the song is indeed certified, none of the sources on the page (save for the ones concerning the certification itself) have the song as its primary subject, rather they are listicles concerning the album or the band's discography as a whole. Furthermore, a customary WP:BEFORE check nets the same conclusion (and as the author of a different article on The Black Parade, I can further attest to this, as I've naturally seen a lot of articles on the album's songs). Leafy46 (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't seem to automatically include them, here are references to the previous nominations:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead! (2nd Nomination) Leafy46 (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. C F A 💬 15:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the certifications and multiple high rankings among the band's songs are plenty for notability. The articles may not all be primarily about this song, but that doesn't mean they aren't valuable in terms of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think there's a difference between just getting a sentence thrown in a review and getting a whole dedicated section of a list article like this song has in multiple of the included sources. Those sections are primarily about this song, and I would think that counts for something. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSONG, certifications "indicate only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable", and "if the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created". There are a few sources which do speak about the song as part of the band's discography as a whole, however I don't know if those are sufficient to prove its notability. Leafy46 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Spencer Stephens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Actor primarily known for one part in one movie. Accordingly, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources discussing the one movie and one part, but none for other significant acting parts. Tagged for notability since 2018. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. C F A 💬 14:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: He was nominated for a Golden Globe, which is usually enough to be considered notable. C F A 💬 14:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The_Omen#Cast: that is what he's notable for and it's sourced. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The articles on his arrest clearly show there has been continued coverage of this person.★Trekker (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Guevara Laforteza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very highly advertorialized ("known for being one of the most fearless and versatile Premiere Leading Ladies", "She enjoys watching movies, baking, and absolutely enjoys Cake, Fried Chicken and Pizza", etc.) WP:BLP of an actress and musician not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actresses or musicians. There are statements here that would be valid notability claims if they were referenced properly, but nothing so "inherently" notable as to exempt her from having to cite proper sources just because of what the article asserts -- but this was "sourced" almost entirely to IMDB pages, Wikidata items and other Wikipedia articles, none of which are acceptable or notability-supporting sources, and after stripping those out all that's left is three short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to get her over WP:GNG all by themselves if they're the best she can do for proper third party coverage.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more knowledge about Philippine musical theatre than I've got can rewrite it neutrally and source it properly, but it can't be kept in this state of writing tone and sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Philippines. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks for your comment, we are now currently working with the revisions of the article, the person in this article is also involve now in the revision. Thank you. Jhenie1326 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules, because "the person in this article is also involve now in the revision" is the worst thing you could possibly have said here. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks just for the verification of the information, however the info is now being updated as per the article published by the news or legal website, please be patient.. thank you for your help. Jhenie1326 (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Draftify. I went through the references, which were inconsistent in formating, and reformatted many of them. I also checked to see if the refs support the information. They do not support the Education and Personal Life section. I also do not see indepth sources; most are brief "fluffy" bits. As it looks like this article is recent and is still being worked on, draftify may be the best solution. Lamona (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John_Kannenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This person does not meet the notability criteria. That museum does not physically exist, he named himself director and chief curator, as far as I can see. Music label is also selfpublished. Linked websites are mostly his websites. Wikigrund (talk) 13:35, 4 August 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 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Museums and libraries, and Wisconsin. C F A 💬 14:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Museum of Portable Sound which appears notable and for which I'm about to create a stub. Kannenberg can be discussed within. Star Mississippi 16:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I agree with Mississippi. As Director and Chief Curator of The Museum of Portable Sound more about Kannenberg can be added to the article. I am surprised it has this long for the article to be nominated for deletion or at least flagged given the article has no citations. Myotus (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Museum of Portable Sound which has multiple reliable sources. Elspea756 (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I am not finding RS for stand-alone article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher McDonald (booking agent) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BASIC. All significant coverage is in promotional blogs. Mostly trivial mentions. A Google search returns nothing except his LinkedIn and for-hire pages.

The article claims he won an Emmy "as a Talent producer and Talent Booker" at the 2024 Emmys. He did not. The citation (p. 31) attached is for the actor Christopher McDonald's win in 2022, a completely different person. In reality, he was a "talent producer", one of many minor credits, for an Emmy-awarded show.

It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON because apparently he has been cast for Superman (2025), although lots of sites claim that it was the other Christopher McDonald so I can't verify that. C F A 💬 13:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Washington, D.C.. C F A 💬 13:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nommed; no evidence of notability, per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE (although I'm not even sure the latter applies here). This was accepted at AfC expressly to give the community a chance to offer its views, so this AfD doesn't contradict that acceptance, quite the opposite. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No significance should be attached to my acceptance at AFC. My acceptance rationale is stated on the article's talk page. I intend to maintain a steadfastly neutral stance in this discussion. I do not anticipate that the acceptance will astonish anyone who has read the article talk page comment. You may draw the conclusion that I am surprised that this nomination has taken so long. I will be interested to see the outcome 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This AFC Helpdesk discussion is relevant background reading, though can have no bearing on this discussion per se since the article must be judged on its current state and merits. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: To clarify the Superman bit, it is indeed this Christopher McDonald who has been cast in the film (as evident by his social media posts and initial trade reports correcting their false info pointing to the other McDonald), although since he is a newcomer actor, he does not appear notable for his other work as a talent agent and a TV producer in his own right just yet. I believe this article could merit some worth after the Superman film has released and his role is more known, so I think sending this to the draftspace in case other editors wish to flesh it out more there could be beneficial. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously it's your prerogative to !vote as you see fit, but just to say that this spent a month in drafts, and was declined no fewer than six times at AfC. It was then accepted largely to let the wider community decide its fate, so sending it back to drafts seems like a retrograde step to me. Also, that Superman film is still a year out, and there's no guarantee that it will establish notability for this actor. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My !vote is in accordance with WP:PRESERVE. I do not believe this is where the nuclear option is required as the whole purpose of the draftspace is for developing article with the potential for mainspace inclusion. There is no harm in letting it move to draftspace and for further work to be done there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your thoughts. here is the logic I followed-

  This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or -
  4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I thought that based on category 3- applies to him as the producer of 5 season of the major TV Show Kelly Clarkson. There is no difference between what type of producer this category applies to. The show Kelly Clarkson - is in fact "such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". And it is not a "single episode", but 5 seasons. Again, his work as producer is recognized by Emmy nomination and Emmy award with the Kelly Clarkson.

I'd like to hear if you disagree. But there is a category for producers.

This is the main criteria I used, and we discussed with the editors.

J2009j (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPRODUCER (The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.) does not apply here. He did not create The Kelly Clarkson Show and he did not co-create The Kelly Clarkson show, and even if somehow being a "Talent Producer and Talent Booker" is considered "creating" the work, his role was certainly not "major" as required by the guideline. Also note that: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included (i.e. if they meet the guideline, they likely have received enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to write an article; in this case, he has not). C F A 💬 15:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @J2009j: the way this is indented, it looks like a reply to my comment, but I presume it isn't? Perhaps you could outdent it appropriately, probably to the main level. And please prefix it with an appropriate label per WP:DISCUSSAFD, so that when it comes to closing this discussion it is clear what your intention was. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't. I just do not seem to see a way to leave a separate comment here. J2009j (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. C F A 💬 16:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong here. I understand your reasoning. As someone from the related field, I can confirm he indeed co-created. He is the part of the founding team of the show, along with other people nominated for Emmy with the show. For this reason i specifically added a source with all over 150 or so episodes of Kelly Clarkson show with credits. Do you know what is the role of the " talent producer/booker" for the talk show? To bring all the guests who are coming to the shows, for every episode. It does not qualify to "played a major role"?

He was invited by Kelly Clarkson to do the show with her team. That is discussed in many of the podcasts. I believe WP:NPRODUCER was created for producers, those who are working on protects behind the public eye.

The fact that the person worked on all 5 seasons, and did not bothered to even go talk about it somewhere, so it was hard for me looking for sources also speaks about it. This is how the majority of producers are. There was a 2 hours long discussion about him on youtube. It was the first thing I saw a few years ago about this individual. It was so interesting. I was surprised there is no wikipedia page. Do not remember how it was called, but there is similar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TrrSks77E J2009j (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sure WP:NPRODUCER does not apply here. There is no coverage on how his role was "major" or how he "co-created" the show. You are just speculating. Regardless, there is not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to write an article, as evidenced by the multiple misleading statements and incorrect citations. C F A 💬 16:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please, see my answer above :For this reason i specifically added a source with all over 150 or so episodes of Kelly Clarkson show with credits. Do you know what is the role of the " talent producer/booker" for the talk show? To bring all the guests who are coming to the shows, for every episode. It does not qualify to "played a major role"? This does not sound like a major role to your personal opinion? I believe it is not objective then.

What are the misleading sources you mean? I added the correct file from the Emmy website with the name of the people from the show. I believe that is what we discussed, and you pointed out to me if was some old file. J2009j (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any action except deletion or retention. DoubleGrazing makes precisely the correct point. I accepted it so that the community could and would make a clear decision about it. Returning it to draft is a pointless exercise after multiple reviews declining it. Let the community decide clearly, please. Trailblazer101 I invite you to come down on one side of the fence or the other. He either passes WP:BIO or he does not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have already made my !vote and I see no harm in moving to the draftspace to allow editors a chance to work on it some more. If this figure does become notable, then there would be content history available to go off of. If the draft is not worked on for a period of six months, it would be deleted anyway. I see this as a fitting compromise solution and nothing serious enough to vote for a full deletion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't see why this was accepted at AfC only to be decided on here, it either meets notability or it doesn't. This seems silly. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It should not have been accepted for AfC because it does not pass notability and still has major issues with the citations. Draftspace is where this type of content should be worked on if desirable, not in the mainspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't "silly". AfC is not, nor should it be, the ultimate arbiter of what gets published; the community is. AfC does not aim for notability beyond reasonable doubt, it aims for better than 50% likelihood, with some inevitable error margin. And given that AfC is in most cases voluntary, there is no point in preventing publication when an author (with no COI or restrictions) is insistent. The rationale for accepting this was perfectly sound, even if the article subsequently ends up here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: These sources are brief mentions or a list of credits from a tv show... I don't see notability. My search brings up nothing extra we could use either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are no sources to be found, beyond quick mentions of his name in relation to various projects. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I replied here regarding point #3 for producers. It does not require mega coverage. The requirement is to create or play significant role in a project. - For this reason i specifically added a source with all over 150 or so episodes of Kelly Clarkson show with credits. Do you know what is the role of the " talent producer/booker" for the talk show? To bring all the guests who are coming to the shows, for every episode. It does not qualify to "played a major role"? This does not sound like a major role to your personal opinion? I believe it is not objective then.

  Do you know that none of the producer of the major American late shows have page on wikipedia because they do not care about publicity? Shows like Steven Colbert and others upon my discovery and motivation to cover this category of people. J2009j (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @J2009j: please don't WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. You can make your point, once, but don't need to make it in response to every !vote. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Is there a way to somehow highlight this point at the begging so people can read it? I believe it is an important point. I have bios of at least 3 producers from main American talk shows never even covered by Wikipedia. This category 3# refers to specifically this type of people. I believe it was made with this purpose. If some editors do not know the roles at the talk shows- it is important to know how there are producers for the context and talent building the show, which are major roles, in addition to the host. Host like Kelly Clarkson or Steven Colbert are the only "big" public people there. For example, you on Wikipedia, keep a category for cinematographers who made a significant piece of art, or painters. J2009j (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A talent producer and booking agent are different from the executive producer or television producer roles, which are nore notable and important than arranging guests to appear on a talk show. And only highlighting 150 episodes on a single show does not mean the individual is notable for that work alone.Most talent agents do not receive a ton of coverage unless they are closer to the top, such as Bryan Lourd, Ari Emanuel, and Phil Gersh, to name a few. While his works and clients may be notable, there has not been sufficient evidence to prove McDonald himself is notable beyond his works alone. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if McDonald met WP:NPRODUCER, that is just guidance (People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.). It is not the same as "presumed" or "inherited" notability. There still needs to be enough coverage to write and accurately source the article, which there clearly isn't. C F A 💬 19:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He may be an extremely competent employee who plays a valuable internal role in making shows run smoothly, but the argument for notability is an unbelievable stretch here. Even assuming that he falls under one of the the genre-specific notability categories in which notability is likely -- and I don't subscribe to that -- the actual significant coverage of this producer is razor-thin. Draftifying it at this point would also just postpone the inevitable and soak up more editor time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to disagree. I see that there is this additional criterion. He, as the talent producer of 'The Kelly Clarkson Show,' was nominated for an Emmy and received an Emmy. His name is listed on the website for the award and nomination. It does not matter whether you like it or not, but the fact is that he has it. The names of all employees of the show are not submitted for an Emmy, but only those who play a significant role.

  Any biography

  • WP:ANYBIO

  1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or
  2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; or
  3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).

  J2009j (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about whether I like or not. He's not an Emmy award nominee. He's someone who worked on the show that was nominated for an Emmy, not the awardee. This has been told to you repeatedly, in multiple places, and you haven't provided a single reliable source that suggests otherwise. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And the fact that the reliable source you provide is your simple assertion that we should trust you because you're in the industry, makes it clear that your lack of providing an actually reliable source and my inability to alternatively find a reliable source saying such, is not a coincidence. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per CoffeeCrumbs reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is a clear absence of substantial coverage of Christopher McDonald, and he does not meet the notability criteria for producers. Ynsfial (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vĩnh Hòa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All of the entries on this dab page are redlinks, apart from one to the Vĩnh Hòa, Nha Trang location. This disambiguation page does not list articles associated with the same title. It is effectively being used as a category page, so it would be better converted to a category. Northernhenge (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Business, and Vietnam. Northernhenge (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those red links will less likely to be created as it lacks notability or even mentioned in the articles per se so it clearly violates MOS:DABRL Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: DAB with one entry, nothing to DAB. I don't see any particular benefit to creating a category for this either. -- D'n'B-t -- 12:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is not a problem if dab page entries are red links, as long as they include one blue link to an article which mentions the topic. I've cleaned up this dab page, and the remaining red-linked communes are all mentioned in their district pages (though not sourced in most/all cases). For all I know this means "North area" or something similarly generic, but it seems useful to offer a dab page given that this placename is used for so many identifiable communes. It's now a properly formatted dab page with valid entries. PamD 08:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks – I can see now that wp:PRIMARYRED could apply. I’ve added a link to Vĩnh Hòa, An Giang. I see there are other articles for similarly names places, for example

  • Vĩnh Hải, Nha Trang
  • Vĩnh Hanh
  • Vĩnh Hồng
  • Vĩnh Hậu, Bạc Liêu

  but it would need a native speaker or subject expert to say whether or not they are the same name, and whether (as PamD says) the name is significant in itself. I still think a category would be a better way of grouping these together though via their larger province areas, given the unlikelihood of notability being established for each individual commune/ward. The articles we do have pretty much just say the places exist. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure what you mean, as you can't have red linked entities in a category. You wouldn't want a category of "Districts which include a commune called Vinh Hoa". Given that these all get a mention on their district page, it seems a useful and correct dab page. PamD 10:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You wouldn't want a category of "Districts which include a commune called Vinh Hoa" – True! --Northernhenge (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Northernhenge I still don't understand what you meant when you said a category would be a better way of grouping these together though via their larger province areas. Could you clarify? PamD 12:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would have resembled "Districts which include a commune called Vinh Hoa" which, now I’ve seen it written down, doesn’t look sensible. --Northernhenge (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And as you suggest, those of us who aren't familiar with Vietnamese have no right to make assumptions as to whether these other places are the same or different - but I've recently almost confused placenames Unsworth and Usworth in my own country, so there's no reason to suppose that they are the same. Best left well alone, as long as dab pages are correctly formatted and we don't have red links without a mention in a blue-linked article. PamD 10:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Vietnamese vi:Vĩnh_Hòa_(định_hướng) has 14 blue links, of which 4+2 seem substantial (non-stub) articles. These are not the usual dab redlinks because of non-notability, but because of language barrier and (deemed) low importance for en-wiki. But that's not the problem of the Dab page, so I appeal to WP:IAR in this case. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzana Pramuková (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I could not find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources for this Slovak women's footballer to meet WP:GNG. I wonder how long this article remains in mainspace as none of the revisions have provided any reliable secondary source since it was created in 2010.

P.s. I feel awkward looking at her surname because it's close to the word "pramuka", meaning "scout" in my native language... ._.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:SIGCOV and does not me WP:SPORTCRIT either. Most of the listed source are either database or primary source. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Didi Zindabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. With the exception of one source, everything falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Churnalism and press releases as well as no-bylined articles. CNMall41 (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Bangladesh, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Zee_Bangla#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is not even a newspaper name under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. And the page is well notable. So I think it needs to be kept.

103.127.222.50 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Public Relations media productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Mention insignificant work. WP:NOT DIRECTORY — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, Television, Video games, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, it's just raw list and not much explanations about the production company. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The article has no encyclopedic context or explanatory value for the interested reader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - This is a part of ISPR's main page. Just like many other pages have separate list pages. For example, Tom Hanks has a separate list page called List of Tom Hanks performances and credits. Another huge list is List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Every production house has a separate list for their work like List of Paramount Pictures films (2010–2019). So, strongly KEEP.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ameen Akbar. Muneebll (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muneebll, OK but Ameen presented an argument that wasn't based on policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northpark, New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not an actual suburb and not notable at all. I am fine with a redirect and merging the demographics to a suitable article. I'm not that fussed on which article it is redirected to. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does appear to be an actual suburb. See listings such as [2] and mentions in [3]. This is the third Auckland suburb to be nominated by this user and it's beginning to become disruptive. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  QV is a property listing company, they don't define suburbs and the fact you cannot spot an obvious real estate industry promotional piece is worrying. The second mention doesn't even state suburb. You haven't shown any notability here either. These are trivial mentions and cannot be used to develop an encyclopaedic article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not sure if it is a suburb. Auckland City is broken into Local Board areas - North Park falls within the Howick Local Board. This local board is subdivided into three sub-divisions (Howick, Pakuranga, and Botony). See this map of Howick. Northpark sits on the boundary of the Howick and Botony subdivisions. NealeWellington (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's clearly listed as a suburb in newspapers and is a census designated place. We've already seen that local boards are not official suburb boundaries. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  New Zealand doesn't have census designated places. Newspapers often get information from Wikipedia so WP:citogenesis needs to be considered, which is another reason not to have the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Census areas are called Census Area Units - maps of these can be found here Census Maps NealeWellington (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Census designated place is a US term. We have census tracts, which is what Stats NZ records. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn’t meet WP for notability since there isn’t enough independent coverage about it. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment It does exist as a suburb per LINZ: https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/113764-nz-suburbs-and-localities/ suburb ID 8768. No opinion as to notability or otherwise. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Included in that dataset are three hospitals, several lakes, and a reservoir. Their definition of suburb/locality seems quite broad. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Check the "type" field as well. The non-suburb or locality entries are classed differently e.g. Lake Waikare (ID 3969) is classed as "Lake" and the Firth of Thames (ID 8450) is classed as "Coastal Bay". Daveosaurus (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The hospitals are listed as suburbs. The reason they are included is because this dataset is based on Fire and Emergency's locations database: 'NZ Suburbs and Localities is based on the NZ Localities dataset previously maintained by Fire and Emergency New Zealand', so these aren't legally recognised/defined areas. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which hospitals? And which lakes and reservoir did you refer to in your previous comment? (Note that the common names of some towns include the word "Lake"). And what do you mean about them not being "legally recognised/defined"? Historically, suburbs and localities had never been legally defined - this dataset is a project to rectify that omission. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Middlemore and Waikato.

  >(Note that the common names of some towns include the word "Lake")

  I'm aware, this was not the case.

  >Historically, suburbs and localities had never been legally defined

  There is an official gazetter and Auckland Council maintains a database on their geomaps service. These exist to catalogue localities and suburbs, not datasets used by firemen. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And if you consult the official gazetteer you will see that Auckland is not an official name. https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/15829 I look forward to seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auckland next April 1st. I could do with the amusement.

  You have not specified which lakes (not being towns, suburbs or localities which include the word "Lake") you have found classified as suburbs or localities.

  And this is not the FENZ dataset. It is a LINZ dataset adapted from the FENZ dataset for public use. Not "firemen".

  Based on these erronous assumptions, plus others (Quotable Value is a State valuation company, not a "property listing company" I can no longer countenance deletion. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We have WP:GNG so even if this non-sequitur made sense it wouldn't matter.

  It's a FENZ dataset, that is where the data comes from. Northpark is not gazetted nor is it included by Auckland Council, so even if it is technically a legal place it quite clearly isn't very notable if no one has bothered to update either of those two sources to include it. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the LINZ finding by Daveosaurus.-Gadfium (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Lopez Luz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a photographer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for photographers.
This is trying for "notability because awards", but that doesn't just indiscriminately hand an automatic notability freebie to every winner of just any award that exists: an award has to itself be notable as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it. So notability can only derive from awards that can be shown to pass WP:GNG -- that is, the source for the award claim has to be evidence that the media consider said award to be significant enough to report its winners as news, and cannot just be the award's own self-published primary source content about itself. But the award claims here are referenced to a primary source rather than a reliable one, and that's the only source in the entire article, to boot.
Since I can't read Spanish and don't have access to the kind of archived Mexican media coverage that it would take to improve this, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody with better access to such tools can find enough to salvage it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just a single primary source for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Mexico. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: some coverage of this person [7] and [8]. The first mostly gives a critical explanation of his work. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: López has been covered by artistic scholarship [9][10][11], received media coverage [12], and interviewed [13][14]. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if these new sources satisfy the nominator's concerns. It would also be great if they were added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Added content and several sources to the article. Will add more, still working on it. --Alan Islas (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Simmons (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BIO1E. Coverage is only around his odd legal case 10 years ago of impersonating a CIA officer and committing fraud. He's just not notable outside of that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: There's plenty of coverage about him, but nothing past 2016... Still, he was rather "popular" for lack of a better term until he got caught. Semi-notable fraudster, unlike so many others that have articles here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  !Weak keep given only because there's also some discussion of his activities in peer-reviewed journals, this was the first one I pulled up [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Articles in The New York Times (March 2015), Rolling Stone (January 2016), Time (October 2015), in Australia (October 2015), Canada (October 2015), China, etc. make him a notable fraud. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't have enough reliable and independent information to prove he's notable, the article fails to meet WP:NBIO. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kennedy (speedway rider) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV about the guy Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Evening Times from 1978 (here and here) states that they were the "Australian under-21 champion". It's not clear what Australian under-21 competition is being referred to, however this may go towards passing WP:NMOTORSPORT. TarnishedPath^talk 10:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Some coverage here and here; also found a brief bit from Old Bike Australasia two years ago ("Danny Kennedy, born in Ballarat in 1958, enjoyed seven seasons in UK from 1976 to 1982, the last four years riding for the Poole Pirates, where he was immensely popular. Sadly he died from a brain tumour in 1993."). What makes the book sources in the article primary? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TarnishedPath's and BeanieFan11's recommendations. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy's Place (2024 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON; short article Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shin SD Sengokuden Densetsu no Daishougun Hen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article has been flagged for notability and lack of sources since 2016. A search for sources has found nothing, I'm nominating it for lack of notability. Brocade River Poems 01:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to SD Gundam#Musha Gundam series as an alternative to deletion. --Mika1h (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]