Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      August 10 (Sat)      August 9 (Fri)      August 8 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Hynek Štichauer (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 zero. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Member of the Czech team that rode in the 2023 World Cup (the pinnacle of speedway alongside the Grand Prix), has also ridden in the highest possible league of speedway in Britain (equivalent to the football Premier league). Pyeongchang (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. I have added multiple non primary sources to article.

Delete. Of the non-stats refs, this is a routine transactional interview with a team promoter (primary, non-independent) N; this is a routine transactional interview with a club owner N; this is a brief transactional press release; and this is a passing mention in an injury update. Nowhere close to SIGCOV in IRS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 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!} 00:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Watson (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)

Similiar reason to nominate as this nomination - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Metcalfe (2nd nomination)

Sources are dubious at best - the Telegraph and Auto Trader source is about a TV show in some minor-league TV station that doesn't warrant notability. His recent presenting job in Carwow only warrant notability on its own page, not on this. Hobbyist sources such as autoevolution are dubious at best. Quality of that page is dubious at best. A check per WP:BEFORE do not show much any reliable sources at all. Also fails WP:JOURNALIST.

WP:ATD will be merge to carwow SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Transportation, and United Kingdom. C F A 💬 03:01, 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!} 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sources in the article look like announcements and others the writings of the subject. Search returns nothing tangible Ednabrenze (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's Senior Secondary School, Kanpur (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:NSCHOOL. The 1 source provided merely confirms someone attended this school. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL.--Ciudatul (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Nielsen (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. Sources provided are primary. Only played 1 list A game in his career. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Denmark. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only other sources available are statistic pages rather than any SIGCOV. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Denmark List A cricketers. AA (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Punwani (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 found no significant coverage for this journalist. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. All sources are from the reporting of the subject not what other sources are reporting about the subject. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Céphas Bansah (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)

Lacks notability, reliable sources. Page was probably created in relation to Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe which was deleted in this Afd. Seems to be another one of those fake titles selling businesses.

Account that started the page was blocked for being a promotion only account and other CoI editors are in the edit history. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ghana and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject. He has been given significant coverage by plenty of German sources: documentary film King Bansah and His Daughter, Der Spiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Das Parlament, The Local, Die Rheinpfalz, Mannheimer Morgen, Lausitzer Rundschau, Deutsche Handwerks Zeitung, and Goethe-Institut

-StellarHalo (talk) 00:03, 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!} 22:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StellarHalo Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21st Asianet Film Awards (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)

One of many WP:CFORKS for Asianet Film Awards created by now blocked/banned user. Sources I find in a WP:BEFORE are not significant enough to show notability for this segment of the award. The information is also covered in the main pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted or the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:SPLITLIST for navigation reasons. Not all years for the awards have their page but that's not a reason to delete those that exist. See category. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list, it is an event. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only you had opened the link to the guideline you might have had a chance to understand what it says. And, on top of this, your comment is completely absurd. The page uses table format and is about an event. It's not the event itself. But maybe you consider, for example, that BLP pages about actors are the actors themselves and not articles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This is about an event with a list of winners. It is not a list article. I am curious how you know if I opened any link or not or why you want to be uncivil. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you indeed open(ed) the link you probably (would have) realise(d) that WP:SPLITLIST does not deal only with "list articles"/"lists" and basically says the same thing as what you yourself say at the end of your rationale, from what I understand of it. You indeed explain that "information is also covered in the main (s)pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted" (if such is the case, it would seem better to redirect rather than delete, but, anyway), but according to WP:SPLITLIST, it would be even better if one could do as you suggest at the end of the same sentence and edit the page(s), as "the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed."

I don't "want to be uncivil" but, as your latest reply perfectly shows, by the way, your initial reply 1) wasn't actually commenting on anything I had referred to (so I assumed you didn't open the link, and one might even assume you still haven't) 2) offered a completely false and absurd dichotomy, on which I commented with a humorous similar dichotomy, obviously not seriously implying that you do really believe that actors are pages. I apologise if you thought I was saying this seriously and if indeed you have opened the page but did not see it was not dealing with lists only. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Just a note that your humor does not come across as humor. It comes across as advertorial which takes away from my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. But again, I understand now based on your explanation. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, effectively unsourced. Snarky mind-reading comments not withstanding, even a breakout list requires reasonable sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:32, 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!} 22:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• draft: ? I mean there are sources about who won what award, but just having a wall of text in fancy boxes isn't helping. This needs adequate sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 31 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!} 23:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakri pakohi (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 couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bihar. C F A 💬 00:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Listed as a panchayat under the name of Pakari Pakohi, so satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 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!} 23:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Ingoldsby (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.Theroadislong(talk) 22:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails all WP:GNG.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Skyfall (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 coverage for either the series or any of its individual books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing on ProQuest, short mentions on Newspapers.com, found no full reviews. I haven't checked the individual titles however, so please ping me if sources come up. Thanks, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 10:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Walls Came Tumbling Down (Wilson book) (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)

No sigcov found. Redirect to author Robert Anton Wilson?

FWIW this is not "a film script", it's a novel written like a film script. I think. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Couldn't find any reviews on ProQuest/newspapers.com (not that the false positives made things any easier). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 10:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, yes, it was an unused film script that Wilson published as a book. Wilson is one of the giants of counter-culture writers of the 20th century and is known (far, but not wide) as one of the centuries important writers. All Wilson articles should be kept as the works of a major author. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Randy Kryn He may be well known but he is far from satisfying NBOOK #5. NBOOK 5 is designed for someone so significant that their bibliography as a whole is a subject of study. When we have literally nothing to say on it, no analysis, no content - hell, the plot summary is even minimal, why have a page except for the sake of having one? Do you know of any sigcov?

  I am an inclusionist when it comes to books but this doesn't fulfill the relatively lax book standards PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: I found one mention of the book in a Vancouver Sun article on ProQuest, but it's discussing Wilson's career without SIGCOV of the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgames (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:N. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this game developer. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Skazi (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains in VR Troopers (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 is a non notable spinout from List of VR Troopers characters. Both lists fail WP:SIGCOV but we have to start somewhere. The other list would be an acceptable redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the "Major Villains" to the appropriate section of List of VR Troopers characters. As said in the nomination, that list is, itself, devoid of reliable sources and could potentially eventually be merged into the main VR Troopers article, but for now, condensing it down to a single character list would be the appropriate first step in figuring out the best way to present the information. Everything beyond the "Major Villains" section are just minor characters and one shot "Monsters of the Week", so should not be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. We shouldn't have multiple non-notable lists about the same topic, but a selective merge would allow editors to re-organize this material. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with it's section at List of VR Troopers characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the sofa (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:OR and WP:SYNTH that is promoting a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. WP:BEFORE does show that this phrase has been used in passing by a few journalists, but fails WP:SIGCOV. The article is seriously padded by editors' WP:OR observations expressing excitement that they have seen the phrase used by a journalist. Once you clean up the WP:OR, there is very little to keep (maybe a redirect to List of Doctor Who home video releases#Blu-ray). Jontesta (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.Jontesta (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doctor Who#Viewership, and merge only the reliable sources into a sentence or two. Svampesky (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Svampesky This phrase is discussed at that same article, but at Doctor Who#History. This could still be merged but that section would be a better target. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doctor Who#History where the topic is already discussed. This is definitely a notable expression and phrase but there isn't really enough to support a whole article on the subject, unfortunately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Doctor Who#History, per all. I don't think this meets WP:N, and the limited coverage can be summarized somewhere else. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Doctor Who#History - Definitely a subject that would make way more sense discussed in the context of the broader topic, per WP:NOPAGE. Rorshacma (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who robots (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:OR without independent sources or any indication of notability. There isn't anything other than a WP:DIRECTORY of Doctor Who episodes that might feature a robot. Wikipedia doesn't support repeated WP:SYNTH lists where editors research patterns across television episodes. Editors should fix the main character list instead of expanding their flaws across multiple faulty lists. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Deleting a well-established article that has been refined and improved by numerous contributors, and which many users find valuable, undermines the collective effort and the utility it provides.

2. Wikipedia's scope has expanded, allowing for more inclusive content. Articles that were deleted a decade ago due to non-notability are now encouraged and considered relevant.

3. While source citations were less emphasized when I initially created the article, contributors have since verified and corrected any inaccuracies, ensuring the article's reliability. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well established articles don't exactly get a free pass from discussions about their quality and issues they may have on the website. They need to be verifiable and notable to continue to exist on the website.
2. While true, that is primarily due to new sources being discovered allowing for more revivals on articles where that sourcing did not exist at the time, not due to any laxing of restrictions.
3. There are only four citations on the article, and many entries are unsourced and are only a redirect to another topic they're a part of. Even if this is kept, it needs a major overhaul to verify its contents as a whole.

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are there any articles on robotic characters in the various books discussing Doctor Who's science? I recall seeing at least one or two, but searching for them proves difficult given that most searches for "Doctor Who robot" tends to just pull results from the episode Robot (Doctor Who). If nothing else can be found I'd suggest a partial merge to list of List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, as several of these characters (Such as Autons, Yeti, and Quarks) do have associations with several entries currently on the list, with some of the robots that are considered species potentially being included in that list as well (Such as the Roboforms, Sandminer Robots, Mechonoids, for example). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging the major robots to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens is a good idea. Toughpigs (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively, per Toughpigs. Some of these have WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE, which fails WP:LISTN as such a narrow spinoff of characters. If we're looking for one list to cover these characters, List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens seems like it's constructed in a neutral way that's consistent with the sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuleap (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 note the two prior AfDs. I also note the banner at the head containing multiple flags for improvements not addressed since September 2018. I suggest that they have not been addressed because they cannot be addressed. Fails WP:GNG, is improperly sourced, and is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Computing, Software, and France. C F A 💬 00:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent What do you have to say for Stephen Schulz's argument towards keeping? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever. If you wish to make that argument in this discussion please make it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then. It has been brought up before that many sources such as Infoworld, LinuxFR, Silicon, a lot of stuff from Opensource.com, etc confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sarvi (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)

Redirect to 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota. This article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This person is a former congressional candidate and former mayor. The election itself was particularly unnoteworthy and has had no lasting signficance. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or misconduct (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell) or being a local politician who happens to be famous for another reason (Clint Eastwood was Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California in the late 1980s.

While this article does not mention it, he has since continued his career as a city administrator in other Minnesota municipalities, but the coverage there is run of the mill coverage of any city administrator. There is nothing so unique about it that it warrants the city administrator himself having an article. In an effort to add information so the article focuses on more facts it goes into his professional history in a lot of detail, but that is a mask for a lack of GNG. Mpen320 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and does not have enough non-campaign related WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie (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)

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Filming has started and coverage existing online seems significant enough. Redirect or Draft if other users don't think it is. Very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The film combines live action with animation like the TV series. Because of that, live-action filming is is occurring right now. The Media Expert (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is generally unwise to assume that a film that is still in production will be notable when/if it is publicly released. In particular, the WP:NFF guidelines state: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." This does not seem to be the case. It also states: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines..." I think it is clear that these criteria have not been met in this case. Of course the editors can retain a draft or the article could be draftified, but it is not suitable for main space. Lamona (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gabby's Dollhouse#Film as an WP:ATD. I think this is a fair compromise between Lamona and Mushy Yank. Overall, though, I have to agree with Lamona and the nomination that this doesn't really meet WP:NFF due to a lack of significant coverage. Stating that the film is live-action and animation and that the live action piece is in progress alone does not satisfy the NFF requirements. We have three references (expanded here to include publisher): Ref 1,^[1] Ref 2,^[2], and Ref 3.^[3] Refs 1 and 3 offer significant coverage; however, they are not of the production, just the announcement of the project. They are also on the same date and from the same company, and the way they are structured, these are really reports based off the same industry announcement, both of which go against WP:INDEPENDENT (same company alone, they're probably OK given different editorial structures, but the nature of the "report" reduces the relevance.) Reference 2 does not WP:VERIFY the information that it claims, as the production is not actually listed. I checked the archives, and they do not help, either. (See archives on 10, 17, 21, and 23 July, respectively. I cannot get them to display, but perhaps someone else can?) The problem with this site is that it is formatted in a way that getting verifiable archives is next to impossible. Maybe archive.today would work, but it doesn't have any entries. Anyway, I still WP:AGF that the information was once there given the listed access date. The problem remains that even if it was there, it would not provide any WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. Basing this off the current entries, it provided a simple fact verification of the start date, and did not provide any prose reporting on this production, failing the significant coverage piece needed to meet NFF. A list of facts is good to verify information, but not to establish notability. -2pou (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Filming already started and they have a release date, there's no reason to delete the page. KingArti (talk) 13:44, 9 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!} 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure (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 few reviews or significant coverage in reliable sources. This is one of the only reviews I could find, and it's in a publication of uncertain reliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Portugal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lists PTGamers.com and Gamerstek.com under external links. Primary source [1] IgelRM (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sites are now dead, which doesn't speak towards their reliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteKeep - Gamerstek review is archived here: [2]. According to their about page, they had a video game section in Destak newspaper, which indicates some sort of reliability. However, it's a moot point if there are no other potential reliable sources since 1 review is not enough. PTGamers.com review ref seems completely dead, but looking at their archived main site ([3]) there doesn't seem to be an about page or similar, I can't find anything to indicate any reliability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that Push Start ref, which is an independently published digital magazine, seems unreliable to me looking at the editorial page: [4]. --Mika1h (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerstek and Mega Score reviews are enough for GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The game got in-depth coverage in a June 2004 issue of Mega Score, including an interview (p.30, 31), and a review (p.70, 71). The only other coverage I was able to find is a brief mention of the game in a 2021 article from the newspaper Observador about video games about Portugal. It's possible that the game got coverage in Portuguese newspapers at the time of release (Newspapers.com has no Portuguese newspapers unfortunately and I wouldn't know where else to look), as the Observator article and the interview in Mega Score indicate that the game was partially funded by Soure city hall. Waxworker (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a dead link from TSF (radio station). It might be useful to mention the game on the Visão article. IgelRM (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews presented above. Two reliable reviews, good enough for me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reviews presented show the page can be retained. Add the 1 paragraph in Observador (linked above by Waxworker) https://observador.pt/2021/03/17/nao-e-so-em-civilization-vi-ha-mais-4-series-de-videojogos-onde-pode-controlar-portugal/ ; a 5-page article dedicated to the game: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235915242_Um_estudo_das_dinamicas_de_apropriacao_do_jogo_Portugal_1111_-_A_Conquista_de_Soure_em_contexto_escolar and I think that should be enough. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Observador source is a list with a few sentences about the game. SBGames, the paper's publisher, is the "Simpósio Brasileiro de Jogos e Entretenimento Digital", not sure that is enough. IgelRM (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because although there is a consensus to Keep there is a challenge on whether sources are of a sufficient quality to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlinspike Hall (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 article was tagged for speedy deletion four years ago (by User:Piotrus). The original rationale still applies:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

The tag was removed without addressing any of the issues. Despite the request for discussion, I could not find one.

I agree with the rationale for deletion. WP:BEFORE only shows official Tin Tin materials and other licensed sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I oppose the proposal for deletion. Tin Tin has been a notable figure in international popular culture over a very extended period and Marlinspike has provided a comprehensive character development and event framework for much of this time. Several of the Tin Tin "adventures" are set predominantly or entirely in this environment. Wikipedia page view, edit and page watcher statistics appear substantive for a short but well written and attractively illustrated article. Citations and source references are adequate for a fictional subject. Removal would frankly appear to be a pointless and potentially unpopular exercise. If however the consensus is for deletion then the alternative of merger should be given serious consideration. Buistr (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, about the speedy; a fictional location is not included among the valid speedy deletion candidate categories, so that was never the correct approach. As for notability, "Moulinsart" or "Chateau de Moulinsart" are among the most notable fictional locations in Belgium and France, instantly recognisable to millions. We have whole books like this, "The daily life at Marlinspike", which talks about Tintin in general, but also at length about both the village of Marlinspike and the castle. If there is a good merge target perhaps this can be merged, but deletion is not warranted. Fram (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment currently, I am leaning towards a Redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. All of the sources discussing Marlinspike are official guidebooks, at least from what I can see here. However, I do not know if the nom or anyone else has partaken in a source search in French sources. I would not know where to start unfortunately, but a search through there may prove more fruitful than an English search given Tintin's ubiquity in Belgium. I won't be changing my vote unless something is found, but I do feel there may be promise that hasn't been uncovered yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Very notable topic, has been covered (directly and in depth) in reliable sources.....as any basic search with the French name can confirm -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Belgium, and France. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think the French sources demonstrate the importance of the location in the collective imagination, and count towards notability. Toughpigs (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BioSense (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:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first I would classify as WP:ROUTINE of budget requests. To the second, one GAO report in 25 years would speak to its non-notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:38, 10 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!} 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankush Hazra filmography (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)

A mostly unsourced and WP:PROMO WP:CONTENTFORK of Ankush_Hazra#Filmography that is entirely unnecessary due to the reasonable length of the actor's main bio article. A PROD was contested and a redirect was removed; I would be content with either delete or the restoration of a stable redirect to Ankush_Hazra#Filmography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G5 - only substantial contributions are by Halud Foressa socks. Jdcomix (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ankush Hazra -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Ankush_Hazra#Filmography. Page is WP:CFORK. RangersRus (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ankush_Hazra#Filmography. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boketo Media (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)

No indication of independent notability per WP:CORP. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find any coverage in secondary WP:RS, and only the two primary sources cited actually mention the company. The company's founder appears to be notable as a YouTube comedian and producer, and the company claims some notable clients, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Tennessee. Wikishovel (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing meeting WP:ORGCRIT. I likely would have went speedy. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• References that failed verification have been removed and the first paragraph has been revised to remove promotional tone. The company, though not extensively covered in secondary sources, plays a crucial role in the success of notable artists mentioned in the article. This indirect impact, while not always explicitly mentioned in media, is significant in the context of the artists' achievements and industry presence. Boketo Media's contributions to the independent music and media scenes, through its work with notable clients, warrant recognition and justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. KelliverLucklile (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "The company, though not extensively covered in secondary sources" is the issue. To show notability, it should have significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Park (Sunyani, Ghana) (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 GNG, no inline refs or citations, but contains content that can be mergeable into another article. Intrisit (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is mergable, then the content should be merged into the other article and then redirected to the merged article. ~ GB fan 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a Merge is suggested but no Merge target article identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic gymnastics at the Summer Olympics (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)

Near duplicate of tables seen at Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics. Narrowly focuses on artistic gymnastics, but not enough substance to strengthen the stand-alone article or page. Well, the tables of men's and women's medal counts separate each other in this article, but I can't help wonder whether to move the separate tables of medal counts into another page, Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics. Oh well, default to merging into that article if uncontested. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Olympics, and Lists. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I don't see the point of a separate page here, entirely duplicative. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect or Merge which I believe is what the nominator is suggesting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics until such time that there is justification for a stand-alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mbugua (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)

No satisfactory sources in the article, and a quick search didn't find any. Note: this was prompted by a request at the help desk on behalf of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Law, and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this in the help desk, for me personally, I suggest keeping the article, my reason is because she co-founded (is that correct?) the biggest law firm in Kenya, and is one of the top 40 most popular women from Kenya.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheNuggeteer, more important than your opinion on this subject is how you would counter the reasons offered in the deletion rationale. What sources support your claim of notability? Please be specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sources 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the sources which prompt me to give the "keep" reply. She does not seem notable outside the business, I'll give you that, but being one of the top 40 women from a country is enough for me.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer, please read what Wikipedia means by notable. 2 and 6 do not mention her. 3 and 7 (which are the same source) has a potted biography, but is mostly quoting her. 5 gives me a 404, but judging by its title, I would be amazed if it had significant coverage of her. 8 and 9 give potted biographies, but are almost certainly not independent.

Sources used to establish notability need to meet all three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 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!} 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony villains (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:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There is already a list of List of My Little Pony characters with its own errors and problems. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to arbitrarily make repeated articles about the same topic unless there is WP:SIGCOV to justify it. Jontesta (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The listed characters from the older series appear to be all one-shot villains that appeared for a single movie/storyline, that have no notability or coverage in reliable sources, and are covered in the main articles for the movies/TV specials they appeared in where applicable. The reoccurring villains from the newer series are already covered on the appropriate character lists and articles for their respective series. This current list is completely unsourced, and I am not finding any sources that would indicate that the topic of villains from throughout the multiple iterations of the MLP franchise are notable as its own group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. This article is a great labor of love but I really don't see anything indicating any independent notability for it as its own list. jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:SPLITLIST might apply. Redirect and merge seems warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. One list of characters per show is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Wcquidditch. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, similiar to the case of List of Doctor Who villains despite this being of a better quality. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:03, 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!} 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of My Little Pony characters, per WP:CONSENSUS. It makes sense to WP:AVOIDSPLIT or even delete, but redirect would preserve the history, and allow selective merging through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge: to List of My Little Pony characters. I don't think a split list is warranted. The main list article needs clean up as well which would help keep the article size down. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of My Little Pony characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mifflin, Indiana (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)

Another case where it appears to have been only a post office. No other info found. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Interestingly, there is a sign there that says "Welcome to Mifflin" [5] which was added sometime between 2007 and 2023. The restaurant that likely put it up claim the area is "Still known as Mifflin" [6] and there appears to be an article about Mifflin. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update, there is an article from February 2010 from the Clarion News. Newspapers.com access for Wikimedia users seems to be down but here it is.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article alone would suggest a WP:GEOLAND pass. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 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!} 16:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the source I linked above and WP:GEOLAND.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBhasha (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)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Ampercent.com doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. Maybe this Wikipedia-related article should be moved to Wikipedia namespace instead of deleted? Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakest keep: I found a full article from the Independent. However, that's just one. The article cites a reviewed paper by the authors of the program; I don't think that (or Wikimedia Diff) counts. There are quite a bit of trivial mentions in other papers. Meanwhile, The Hindu and Time of India each devote a paragraph. I feel like there's marginal notability here. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, there are paragraphs in several books: [7] [8]. There's also this Taylor & Francis encyclopedia that cites it, but I can't find the relevant content that cites it anywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aaron Liu, the encyclopedia link you pointed lists sites in general and it even includes this wiki (enwiki). Those paragraphs in the books you mentioned are just opinion of other related contents, it even says it is worth to mention WikiBasha a browser extension like ours. That is literally a mention. And this is just a mention of tools capable of doing what WikiBasha does. If I am getting this wrong, please let me know. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, you still have the paragraphs in the news, which were what I was mostly referring to when I left the reply below. I'll strike the first book I linked per what you said, thanks, but the other links are still something.
  On the encyclopedia, like I said, that's a ((notelist)). We'd need to read where the notes are cited to evaluate if the encyclopedia gives it notability. If you did find the part that cites note 34, please paste it here so we can have a look. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:31, 10 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!} 16:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I couldn't find more sources than the Independent above published in 2010. Searching for its former name "wikiBabel" brings mostly pages linked to Microsoft that are currently deleted. Its web doesn't really function, etc. ---Tumbuka Arch (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the paragraphs above? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aaron Liu I have responded above. Please check. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. France (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 might fail WP:NMOTORSPORT — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Am I reading it correctly that he only competed in one professional race? It appears he did not qualify (DNQ) and withdrew (WD) a few times, but I only see one actual race listed in all those tables. Being a member of the France family does not make him notable, so he needs to have made a name for himself in racing, and I don't see it. - Donald Albury 21:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I had found something here, but it just links to a bunch of news items, each of which just mentions J.C. as part of a driving team. I have found a number of pieces about his drunk-driving arrest, but that doesn't help. Also found a column he wrote himself about what he is doing now, and an interview which might be usable for details, but not for establishing notability. Donald Albury 22:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep France competed in multiple full seasons of professional Grand Am racing. I will make that clear in the article. -Drdisque (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...but is there anything there to assert notability? The state of the article does not help. Often, I say rip it up and start afresh. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, he unequivocally passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. -Drdisque (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kitab-Verlag (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 can't find anything on this book publisher to establish its notability. The one source in the page is brief but reliable, but only one source, in addition to one I added which is also brief. However as with all book publishing companies finding sources is extremely annoying as there are many usages of it when books it published were cited by others, so there could be other things out there. They seem to be not insignificant so it's possible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Austria. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Google search on News brings entirely nothing. Its article on de-wiki only shows two sources which are not reliable sources as one is its own website and the other redirects to the very same web. I couldn't find news etc., but was able to find mentions of the company in its books it publishes. I will go with delete for now.-Tumbuka Arch (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zenless Zone Zero characters (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:Gamecruft, in-universe list IgelRM (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. IgelRM (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Wikipedia is not FANDOM, and this would need a total rewrite to be encyclopedic and less of a game guide. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As someone who has contributed to this list it pains me but I agree it has gotten a bit unwieldy. I'd offer a compromise to just create a simpler list of the characters, where outside sources can be found about them, and then Merge with the main Zenless Zone Zero page. Pushpaizol (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - as a plausible search term, but this list would pretty much need a WP:TNT to ever exist. It's written entirely like wikia/fansite type stuff. One could check and see if any fan wikis could use it I suppose. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Zenless Zone Zero, the character list is short enough to have in the main article for now. Jumpytoo Talk 19:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Unless the appropriate weight of real-world perspective content is given, I would still prefer merging. However, seeing VulcanSphere has started building up the real-world parts of the article, we can wait a few days for improvements to show up. SuperGrey (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources are abundant (see the ref ideas in the talk page), it just needs to be incorporated into the article. SuperGrey (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's good that there's some out-of-universe content out there. That would upgrade my stance to "merge"...but not to "Keep", as I still don't see the need for a separate character article when the parent article is so short. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Bozdağ (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)

He has notability problem and sources don't provide this. İmmortalance (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. İmmortalance (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources #1 and #2 are not WP:INDEPENDENT since they link to his own website and therefore don't contribute to notability. #3 is just a respiratory of books. I can't find the specific page for #4, but the article states that he has written in that magazine, not that the magazine has written about him, and therefore doesn't contribute to notability. #5 is similar to #4. #6–#9 are all interviews and don't contribute to notability, and #10 and #11 are just respiratory links. I looked for other sources, but I didn't find anything with WP:SIGCOV that contributes to notability. Additionally, the article is not written in a neutral tone. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dee (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references that are presently used in the article mention him once or twice, at most. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Out the Gate (film), in which he starred. toweli (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Jamaica, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Otávio Jordão da Silva (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:LASTING. I can't find anything really substantial about this murder after the few days of coverage in 2013. Lettlre (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Football, and Brazil. Lettlre (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bit of coverage in a 2023 German book, which is probably sigcov, but that's only one thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my vote is delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although tabloid, [9], that is lasting! Sources are fine in the article, covers the events, you have multiple different YouTube videos which show lasting like this one [10], there are posts on Facebook and TikTok about this, Twitter [11], etc. Those few bits years later, So ye, Keep for me, thanks. Govvy (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The tabloid doesn't help, the YouTube videos don't help, social media posts definitely do not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We should never use social media sources per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep significant incident with fair coverage Ecpiandy (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the sources date back to 2013, when the incident took place. WP:LASTING states that "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." This murder was not a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance. And it has definitely been long enough to determine whether or not this event is lasting. Therefore, it is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Plus, the article fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE because the only significant coverage of the murder happened while it was still breaking news (5–8 July). The article was also created on 7 July, while much of the news was still coming out about the event, which makes me think that the creation of the article was a little rushed. Govvy's links to social media websites, Youtube, and the tabloid definitely do not help establish notability. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply @Relativity: I never said the links I provided show notability, that's already been established in the article, what I provided shows lasting, is it still being talked about years later, what I showed is yes it is. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not how lasting is established. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GNG. Significant coverage with third party sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article might pass the GNG but doesn't pass the SNG. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability - NOTNEWS. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This is not a football context, but rather a brutal/macabre murder that had repercussions in Brazil years ago. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What repercussions? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations (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:NOT, WP:NCORP. Redundant.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company on a randomly-selected date of no significance. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly,. are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources required by WP:ORGIND. Instead the article is almost entirely cited to SIA Cargo's annual reports/website, the sole exceptions being a one-paragraph report on Aircargonews.net (which is trade-press), a press-release from Copenhagen airport (a business-partner of SIA Cargo and so not independent) and a press-release from the Scottish Government about a speech at a dinner marking the start of services from Presswick (again, not independent).

The page is redundant because SIA Cargo's services completely over-lap with those of Singapore Airlines, and the destinations of Singapore Airlines are already adequately summarised at Singapore_Airlines#Destinations. FOARP (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Singapore. FOARP (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reykjavík International 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)

I'm unable to locate any sourcing that meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Iceland. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete according to the article, the school existed for 3 years and only had about a dozen students each year. The only source that isn't their own website is a government statistical database. Search results generally are referring to International School of Iceland or are Wikipedia mirrors. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm on the fence about this one at the moment, which is not where I expected to be given the tiny number of children and short period the school was open. I have three additional sources, which I'm fairly sure are all about this specific school:

This is a passing mention of the school in a brief article about a child winning a prize. It does not add to notability and I'm mentioning it for completeness.

This, in Vísir, is significant coverage in a reliable, independent source.

This also looks like decent coverage in a reliable source, Morgunblaðið.

Even accepting both those, we only have the defunct school website, archive here, and the stats report - the former definitely being a primary source, the latter more of a grey area - so not reaching WP:THREE, but will see what others say. Tacyarg (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The criteria for notability requires more than passing mentions. The Iceland Review is a passing mention about a student coming second in a competition. This in Visir is a "puff profile" that relies entirely on information provided by the school and their principal, it has no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject which is part of the criteria for "Independent Content". Finally this magazine article in Morgunblaðið suffers the same faults - a "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided by the teachers/school and with no in-depth "Independent Content" from a source unaffiliated with the school. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Weak keep. The weekly paper Reykjavík had a couple of stories regarding the founding of the school (Nýr einkaskóli í undirbúningi and Tókst ekki hjá Reykjavík). This is another story from Morgunblaðið. Also seems to have been known as Alþjóðaskólinn í Reykjavík. Alvaldi (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Topics require in-depth "Independent Content" to meet the criteria for establishing notability and we do not consider information regurgitated from company documents or interviews, etc. Nýr einkaskóli í undirbúningi simply repeats information from the founding docs files on incorporation (says it several times in the article). This story in Timarit is about the school (unsuccessfully to date) looking for a place from which to operate and yes, the school is mentioned, but it contains insufficient in-depth information about the school. This other story in Timarit is reporting on the signing of the contract for the school and reports on who attended, where it is based, the number of students and teachers, the canteen, the subjects and the length of contract - all information provided by the school during this event and no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cubana de Aviación destinations (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:NOT, WP:NCORP.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly,. are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is entirely sourced either to the company website or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability - indeed one is actually a link to what appears to be a review of the film Cars 3.

The overwhelming majority of destinations listed here are listed as "Terminated" so this list is also un-necessary, and already adequately covered by the sentence "Cubana operates flights to over 20 destinations in Cuba, Europe, the Caribbean, North, Central and South America" in the main article. To the extent that there is any encyclopaedic interest in Cubana's previous destinations, this is already covered by the page History of Cubana de Aviación. This page is therefore entirely redundant. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Cuba. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I said in other deletion discussions regarding airline destinations, in the case of mass removal of these articles I will quit Wikipedia for good. I have neither the time nor the will to discuss this over and over again.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:IINFO. As the flag carrier of Cuba, Cubana de Aviación certainly has a unique history, and it is entirely appropriate to discuss the development of its route network over time, which people have done in the parent article. What I cannot support is a list of every single city this airline has flown to since it was established almost a century ago. I see no need for us to document that at one point in its existence Cubana flew to some random destination that appears in its 1949 timetable. Such a list falls outside the scope of our encyclopedia.

  As a side note the link mentioned above can be found in the Internet Archive where it leads to an article about Cubana flights to Martinique. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per repeated precedent. The closure of the most recent one I remember cited Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles in determining that there is no consensus for deletion. In the AfD review the "no consensus" close was endorsed, a number of paths forward were suggested to those trying to delete these articles to establish a new consensus. Instead, it seems that these disruptive nominations are continuing. Worth noting that there was yet another discussion about Aeroflot destinations also earlier this year which resulted in keep. Do we have to keep doing this? Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Arben (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)

Lacks independent, sig/in-depth coverage in RS and does not meet NMODEL. Earlier PROD'd by @Voorts: Flagged as UPE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per my PROD and nom. The sources that were added since my PROD are either unreliable or borderline and don't contain significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe this meets WP:NMODEL. According to WP:NMODEL: This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if: (1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

In this case of this young model, Natasha Arben as I read from the page, she "has appeared in the Frontis Piece of Country Life Magazine,^[1] and has appeared on the front covers of L'Officiel Monaco,^[2], L’Officiel Cyprus^[3] and L’Officiel Ibiza.^[4]"

For me, these features can be classified as significant roles according to WP:NMODEL. She didn't pay the magazines to feature her on their covers. She earned these organically and meritoriously as a professional model. This is the major reason I de-prodded the page. Let other editors weigh in on this. Maltuguom (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Carmel (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)

extra hyper-local run of the mill buildings that does not fall under WP:GEOFEAT because it's not protected under national status. Trivial coverage in an Oakland newspaper and SF Chronicle, lots of snippet coverages based on ultra hyper-local Carmel-Pinecone weekly tabloid. This appears to be part of the ongoing construction of Carmel-by-the-Sea related walled garden by one creator. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Business, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Bank of Carmel is connected with artist Paul Whitman who constructed two bas reliefs for the front of the Bank of Carmel building. The bank article links to Thomas Albert Work, Charles O. Goold, and Barnet J. Segal , who were important directors for the building. The Art Deco style of the building is a significant historical aspect. The city of Carmel has recognized the building as an important historical site in there Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey. Secondary sources by Kent Seavey and Sharron Lee Hale (see edit request) show WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILDING. The building is notable as a result of its historic, social, and architectural importance. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding Seavey, how significant is the coverage? The citation in the article is to a single page, and the link provided shows that this page is just a photo & caption in a book of photos. Axad12 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not about size of coverage but about what is significant. The Kent Seavey book gives a good overview of Bank of Carmel, how it looked before it has been turned into a retail store, its relationship to Barnet J. Segal and artist Paul Whitman. It is an important source to show the historical important of the building. I've added a second source in an edit request on the talk page. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, just to be clear, when you say "good overview" you mean a single photo and caption?

  Do we assume therefore that, in your opinion, every property with a photograph in that book satisfies WP:NBUILDING? Or, indeed, every property that has ever appeared in a captioned photograph in any book? Axad12 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is more than a photo and a caption. Under the photo is a full, multi-sentence description with names, dates, and info on the bank. WP:GNG's "significant coverage" does not require a volume of words. It can also mean the quality of the words. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a captioned photo in a local picture book. However, I do agree with you when you say that to you that qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. Axad12 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, you changed your comment - you deleted the bit that said "To me that is WP:SIGCOV". Why did you delete that bit? Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Greg, please, multiple editors have explained to you multiple times that a photograph or a photo caption does not count as SIGCOV nor contributes to notability criteria. It might be ok to use to back up a fact, but that's it. Do you not remember reading or hearing this advice in the past? Netherzone (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Editors are allowed to make changes. The topic of WP:GNG is important in relation to WP:SIGCOV. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, you still say Seavey counts as SIGCOV? Axad12 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The correct way (meaning best practices) to make changes at AfDs is to strike out the text that is no longer applicable or changed, then add the new text. That is so other editors can have a comprehensive understanding of the points being made. Netherzone (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Greghenderson2006:, all of those names are biography articles in your walled garden in Carmel/Pebble Beach/Monterey/California topic area. Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I had the exact same thought earlier this morning - yet another walled garden. Probably many of these articles can be merged or redirected, but this is yet another big clean up project. It may be best waiting a week or two, and tackling it in an organized way, identifying key articles are indisputably notable that might be appropriate merge/redirect targets. Thoughts? Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To above comments: Please read the follwoing two articles:

  • Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia
  • Criticism of Wikipedia

  I think they are key here as it covers the topic of deleting articles in Wikipedia, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven policy application. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, if only there wasn't so much excessive rule-making, e.g. UPE, COI, GNG, SIGCOV, etc., etc. Axad12 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTINHERITED. Full stop. Ravenswing 22:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I haven't yet looked into all of the sources, but at least half of the current ones are press releases, they are not even "trivial coverage", they are press-release based PR announcements placed in newspapers, not SIGCOV. See Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Press_releases for more information. Netherzone (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What you call press releases are actually important pieces of primary source information that tells a story and is part of the history! For example, "Carmel Notes". Oakland Tribune. Oakland, California. 14 Oct 1923. p. 25. Retrieved 2022-05-24, says "Carmel's new bank was the first and only one the city has had." This indicates it was the first bank in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, which is significant. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they are press releases. Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't tell if the article is supposed to be about the short-lived bank or the building. If it's about the bank, it fails the WP:NCORP test of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS, and if it's about the building, which is not on any historic registers that carry presumed notability, it fails WP:NBUILD, which calls for "significant in-depth coverage." What's offered here is a series of primary sources, trivial local newspaper mentions, and unreliable sources like Arcadia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the nom that this is part of the Carmel WP:Walled garden, yet another run of the mill local building that is not on the NRHP, thus failing WP:BUILD. I am also in agreement with Dclemens1971 that as a bank it does not meet WP:NCORP criteria for SIRS & SIGCOV. The creator still does not seem to understand that notability is not inherited from allegedly "notable" people associated with the structure. What we have in terms of sourcing is: 1) a nomination form by the Parks & Recreation (primary source); 2) a press-release printed in a newspaper (primary source); 3) another press release (primary source), 4) another press release (primary source); 5) a photo and photo caption in a tourist-trade book published by a marginal publisher (Arcadia) whose reliability is questionable (not SIGCOV and low-quality source); 6) a short piece without a by-line in the hyper-local weekly tabloid, The Pine Cone; 7) a meeting agenda (primary source, really wondering why this is even included?); 8) a 404 dead link in The Pine Cone (hyper local weekly tabloid); 9) an advertisement in The Pine Cone (WTF?); 10) a photo and caption in a report by the City of Carmel (primary source). None of this contributes to the notability of the bank as a business nor the building, therefore also fails WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Looks like Netherzone and Graywalls always come to the plate to delete good articles that have plenty of sources, including primary and secondary ones. This Deletionists mentality is a reason why many have criticism of Wikipedia. An enclypodia should free to write on many topics both of local and national interest. Based on WP:GNG, the article has significant coverage in reliable sources. More sources have been included in the edit request. Instead of trying to delte articles we should be encouraging fellow Wikipedians to add additional sources if needed. I feel that some people are to quick to judge and just delete articles they don't like. That shouldn't be how an enclypodia works to educate them on topics like the first bank in Carmel! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Part of a campaign to get every last ditch of Carmel-by-the-Sea related stuff into Wikipedia, even if they are not notable and there is little to no reliable sourcing, which includes this article. Most of the article's sources are not independent of the subject or are press releases. HarukaAmaranth 01:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please also see edit request sources. BTW, the Carmel Bank was a pretty notable bank in its day. It was the first bank in that city. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The various superlatives of first, biggest, richest, largest, oldest in a local villages and townships are not a cause for creating an encyclopedia article. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the reasons outlined by Dclemens1971 and Netherzone Axad12 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Netherzone's thorough source-by-source analysis is spot-on as usual, and Dclemens1971 also provides an accurate summary of the available coverage and how it squares up to notability guidelines. Left guide (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not a platform for local tourism projects, we have guidelines for establishing notability which requires a certain standard from sources, none of which are met here. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. This is certainly not tourism! It about the history of bank, which was the 1st bank in the village of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and part of a Carmel-by-the-Sea walled garden of non notable entities 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Honestly, it's looking like WP:CreatedbyGregHenderson is going to wind up as one of the tacit reasons to advocate deletion. An obvious GNG fail to anyone not GH, and if he wants to continue to promote Carmel following his community block at ANI, he can do so on his own website, and best of luck to him. Ravenswing 22:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of IrAero destinations (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:NOT, WP:NCORP.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is entirely sourced either to the company website or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability.

The IrAero page is also nominated, also for failing WP:NCORP. The only source that is not the company website or trade-press is a single report by TASS, but this is a report based entirely on a press-release from the company and is a run of the mill report about building a hangar. Multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, independent sources are required to WP:NCORP, but there is not even one cited in the article nor does a quick search find any. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Russia. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List of IrAero destinations per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Keep IrAero. Being the launch operator for a new aircraft type seems like a pretty strong sign of notability; the existing source for that is paywalled, so I can't tell whether it is based entirely on press releases from IrAero or Irkut/UAC – but there are other independent sources that discuss this aspect, e.g. [12] which is clearly not just parroting a press release. Independent sources can also be found for other aspects, such as sanctions-busting flights to southeast Asia. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Rosbif73. Does that include IrAero? FOARP (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, should have made clear that my !vote applied only to the list – I've edited it accordingly. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Rosbif73. My reading of the Airinsight article (setting aside WP:TRADES for the minute) is it only makes a bare mention of IrAero ("Prominent operators include Aeroflot, Red Wings, and IrAero.") Do the other sources - e.g., the SE Asia sanctions-busting stories - give more coverage than that? FOARP (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, I must have pasted the wrong URL, though I can't quickly find the link I intended to post instead of that Airinsight piece. Regardless, as mentioned by others below, there are also Russian-language sources to consider. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep IrAero article. Meets WP:NCORP when you search for the name in Russian, ИрАэро. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the list of destinations. Per WP:NOTDB we shouldn't be maintaining a database of every place this airline has flown to in history. I lean Keep for the article about the airline. By searching for IrAero in Russian I was able to find at least one article in Vedomosti that discusses the company in detail based on Google Translate. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Momotenko Levitsky (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)

BLP does not meet WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NMUSICOTHER or even general. The "awards" are not prestigious but merely submissions to ensembles (Prix Annelie de Man Ensemble Black Pencil Prize, 150-Years-of-Music-Technology Composition Competition Prize) that "award for performance" in keeping with sites such as composersite.com. Heavy COI that results in sources that are either primary or closely related to subject that mention or preview works. Notability by association in list of compositions (a companion piece for Les cinq doigts by Igor Stravinsky, a companion piece for All-Night Vigil by Sergej Rachmaninov,, Companion piece for Das Lied von der Erde by Gustav Mahler) without real content within a Career section. Stating premieres (The world première was at Koningshoeven Abbey on Saint Cecilia's feast day, 22 November 2014., world premiere was present during the opening of the 25th edition of the festival at De Doelen in Rotterdam, conducted by Valery Gergiev), musical organizations, conductors, etc is no different than any other contemporary composer having their works performed around the world today yet no article representation here at WP. Mere filler and WP:FLUFF content.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Ironically, given that I was the editor who previously nominated this article for AfD discussion, I believe it should be retained. Subject meets criteria 5 (the Gramophone review of the recent Ondine release calls it the subject's "major-label debut")[13] and 11 of WP:MUSICBIO, as well as criterion 3 of WP:ANYBIO. However, I do agree that a lot of the self-promotional language needs to be cut. But that does not warrant deletion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Granted your observations may be correct. However, you mentioned #11 (Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network), can you specifically back those claims with RS found within the article? I am finding dead links and non-links. As for Criterion 3: as well, what "biographical dictionary" are you talking about found within the article? Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources in question:

• 1. worldmusicdays2019.ee. 2019. No longer exists. The site itself is self-promotional by sign-in members.
• 2. muziekencyclopedie.nl is not an "Encyclopedia". The actual site is: muziekweb.nl/. It is a Dutch lending library. It lists BLP's album Creator of Angels.
• 4 a,b,c,d,e,f is not a continuous "rotation nationally by a major station". It is merely listing the same broadcast of the BLP's works similar to other musicians featured on the same radio program "Recent broadcasts from Concertzender Amsterdam Organ Park".
• 5 is the same as 4. Other musicians are also listed multiple times as featured "in residence".
• 7, 8 & 9 are same.
• 11, 12, 13: Orgelpark again.
• 18. Primary to BLP website
• 19. Same as 4
• 20. Deadlink
• 24 & 25. Same as 1. No longer exists. The site itself is self-promotional by sign-in members.
• 26, 27, 28 no longer exist or bring to a different page.
• 30-34 are shared with other composers. Not notable specifically to BLP.

Maineartists (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The links from Concertzender, which is (or was?) the Dutch public radio channel, establish criterion 11 of WP:MUSICBIO. Criterion 5 is met without question; that alone is sufficient rationale for me to vote "keep". I'm not sure what happened to subject's entry at Muziekencyclopedie. Presumably it was moved elsewhere. At any rate, the entry is archived here, which qualifies it as valid per WP:LR, WP:MDLI, WP:KDL, and WP:DEADREF. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying this: "The links from Concertzender, which is (or was?) the Dutch public radio channel, establish criterion 11 of WP:MUSICBIO" but provide no additional sourcing. Just how many "links" are you seeing on this page? Criterion for 11 is for "bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.". Meaning, charting, Billboard, i.e. Taylor Swift song playing No. 1 in the country continuously (in rotation) across national radio stations for weeks at a time. The BLP's radio play was a singular event at the Amsterdam Organ Park. The dates next to the pieces listed on the one-event program are not when they were aired but when they were written. The program was radio-played only once; not in rotation. Please provide additional sources that show a national radio station (or stations) that has played the BLP's music "in rotation. He would have to have a work that is played by classical radio station(s) in rotation; i.e. Taylor Swift. However, I do see the correct link to the Music Encyclopedia (now "Sound and Vision") entry that is basically a three-line bio taken from his own website. If this is what qualifies for entry at WP, then at the very least, this article requires a heavy, heavy scrub and re-construction. Obviously, it will pass this 2nd AfD so I will start reassembly off-site. Thanks Maineartists (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is a qualified disaster, however the Grammophone[14] and Volkskrant[15] reviews are sufficient to keep. There were articles also in the regional press. Urgent cleanup! gidonb (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I am at tendency toward agree at the moment for keep; and I will most certainly be going in and attending with strong intent for an intense cleanup, but it can wait until this closes. Gathering consensus for a complete overhaul will allow a Talk Page reference as to they "why" without the need for debate. I expect there may be push-back due to the COI issue at the article. As well, there are RS being brought here that are not at the article itself that will come in handy; as most sources are now defunct, dead or primary. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI can be cleaned up. This is an example of a composer article that I clean up every now and then. So it doesn't contain the information that the person would include himself. It's still an important resource as this composer is constantly played by wind orchestras ("bands") and other ensembles around the US and hence is frequently read. Worthy both of the composer and of WP. Actually I created this one after the bio had been unjustifiably banned. It has the tendency to turn into PEACOCK once in a while. gidonb (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"this composer is constantly played by wind orchestras ("bands") and other ensembles around the US and hence is frequently read." Where? Please provide sources to back this claim. So far, I can only find performance sources within his native land. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the linked "this" to see to which composer I refer. gidonb (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? I'm refering to Alfred Momotenko Levitsky. Not some other composer or their article. So far, we are just talking in circles here and also on the article page as another editor is merely citing sources about the same two things: Orgel Park concert and Creator of Angels CD. But nothing new has been found. There is still no evidence of "rotation" on radio. Aside from the one mere mention in a music publication, all that's being done at present is overkill of sources about the same two achievements. Maineartists (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What other editors write does not apply to my opinion. I showed you what a cleaned up composer article may look like. Otherwise I have nothing to add. Neither do you, it seems. Rest assured that I had read the intro before forming my opinion! gidonb (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All problems with the article have been resolved by User:CurryTime7-24. I only tweaked the headers. The topic clearly passes the GNG and NMUSIC. The nomination can be withdrawn or closed as keep. As the nominator put it: I am at tendency toward agree at the moment for keep. gidonb (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Hunter (actor) (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 an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for actors is not satisfied just because the article lists acting roles, and requires the reception of WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about him and his roles in reliable sources -- but the referencing here is almost entirely to unreliable sources such as blogs, YouTube videos and IMDb. The only source that counts as reliable at all is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on an individual television station's local newscast, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if all of the rest of the sourcing is junk.
Simply having had acting roles is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have proper GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to If Loving You Is Wrong: Appears to fail both GNG and NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  His role in If Loving You Is Wrong is his only significant role. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (No comment on redirect - he's been in various films and shows.) I only find one reasonable source: the LA Sentinal listed here. The rest are interviews or otherwise non-independent. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advokatfirman Vinge (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)

No secondary sources explicitly about the company. I can't find any myself either. I don't believe this company meets WP:CORP. This article was discussed in AfD almost 10 years ago, but I believe the editorial interpretation of notability has shifted since then. Niashervin (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Europe, and Sweden. Niashervin (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Vinge has been one of the dominant law firms in the Nordic countries since the 1980s. I've added better sources to the article. /Julle (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't find any of the sources you cited. Is it possible to read them? Are there sources with similar information that are readily accessible? Even when searching the article names directly on Dagens Industri's website I cannot find them. Niashervin (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Niashervin: They require access to w:sv:Mediearkivet, which is a paid service (or to printed copies of the newspapers, I suppose). These sources are largely from the late 80s and early 90s; they won't be easily accessible online. Any Wikipedian with a Swedish university account should be able to check them, though, and Wikimedia Sweden is paying for access for some editors. If you lack access to Mediearkivet, I recommend you treat them as you would any printed source. /Julle (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know how this "legally" will fit Wikipedia's standards of notability, but just for the record:

  If it is a requirement to read into a paid archive to find any sources that make an extant company meet WP:GNG then I don't think it should meet it. If this company really is so noteworthy as a massive law firm, there should me modern references to it. But it doesn't seem like there is any exclusive article on it in the last couple of decades, even as it still runs today. Niashervin (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per improvements made since nom. Third party good sources. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Gilbert Pickard (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 Distinguished Flying Medal is nowhere near a Victoria Cross, and that's the only claim to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One third-level decoration (and even that's inaccurate, as he had the DFC rather than the DFM). No other reason given for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namdhari Movement (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)

User Charhat Singh unilaterally split the main Namdhari article into two separate articles: Namdhari Movement and Kuka Samparda without any consensus nor justification. I propose the Kuka Samparda article be deleted as well. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sikhism and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Kooka myself and the information seems fine, Namdhari Movement should be renamed as Kooka Movement/Lehar because that is the official or more apt name. Kooka Samparda is legitimate, just one statement needs editing as it seems to be misinformation/British propaganda. Many forget that Namdhari is the individual/group and the religion is Namdhari Sikhism or the Kooka Samparda. Mianpur (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mianpur Seems suspicious that a new account is voting on this. Also, it is very likely these pages were created by a confirmed sock puppet (I’ve already presented evidence at the sock puppet investigation board). MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mianpur The point raised by @MaplesyrupSushi is valid. I do not know which reference provides the words 'Namdhari Sikhism' when the word 'Sikhism' itself at present is being deemed by scholars as the colonial manifestation of the Sikh religion, which should be termed 'Sikhi', with no substitute word in English, at least for the time being. Similarly, 'Kooka Samprada' seems odd enough. The hard core differentiation of the Sikh sects is majorly a twentieth century phenomenon. Although distinctions exist, but all trace their origins to Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Hence, in my humble opinion, unless we are scholarly providing references, we should not devise terms, suiting political agendas, but should stick to broad, unbiased academic discourse on the subject. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the assertions made by @MaplesyrupSushi that these article pages were created by splitting Namdhari article page. Undoubtedly, the Namdhari page needs improvement and users are already active in it. However, creating two separate articles form it and copy-pasting most of the content is not at all desirable. Namdhari Movement definitely needs a major overhaul otherwise, and at present, I fully support its deletion, with endeavors to correct the information on similar pre-existing pages. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YNAB (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)