Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 4: Difference between revisions
Malinaccier (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digis (compаny)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Myers (footballer)}}<!--Relisted--> |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Myers (footballer)}}<!--Relisted--> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajay Pal Lamba}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajay Pal Lamba}} |
Revision as of 15:09, 4 November 2024
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as G5, sockpuppetry – more at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Digis (compаny) (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)
Previously deleted as G5 created page; not notable. 25lucky (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Cyprus, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- (Note that in the mean time the article was moved because of Cyrillic letter in the disambiguation string) —Mykhal (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G5 - more Wikibusines spam. MER-C 11:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Tim Myers (footballer) (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)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's significant coverage here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - @Alexeyevitch:, @GiantSnowman:, @BeanieFan11:, I found [1], [2], and [3] among more sources. Clearly signficant player in NZ local football who won OFC Champions League, five league titles and played for the NZ national and olympic team. Article needs improvement not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- First source is decent, second one too broad, third one inaccessible. GiantSnowman 21:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I can't read Das osmnezz's ProQuest link, but the first one is sigcov (as pointed out above), and, by looking through ProQuest myself, I located this which is arguably sigcov as well. For a New Zealand international and Olympian, this should probably be sufficient. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- That source is also inaccessible. GiantSnowman 21:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Copied from the source:
ANY PLANS Tim Myers and his soccer-mad mates might have had for these school holidays went on hold early last month. Against the odds, the Myers-led Soccer 2 team beat Australian champions FC Melbourne 2-1 on an outer field at North Harbour Stadium, and with it won the chance to lace their boots at the Manchester United Premier Cup tournament in Hong Kong. The under-15 team ... leaves tomorrow on the trip of their lives. As captain, Myers has the honour of leading the team, who include two of his Auckland Grammar schoolmates, into the unknown ... Since being selected for Soccer 2 this year when he was juggling cricket and soccer, Myers has been aware of the big prize, but admits he and his team-mates did not carry any great expectations into the game against Melbourne. When Soccer 2 fell a goal behind after 20 minutes to an Australian team so confident of success that they did not turn up until the day before the game, he was not too surprised, but said he and the rest did not give up ... Myers, a defender who first kicked a ball as a five-year-old at the Eastern Suburbs club where he continues to play, is under no illusions as he prepares for the 10-day trip, which will include, realistically, four pool games, but not much else...
BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Copied from the source:
- That source is also inaccessible. GiantSnowman 21:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I think the two NZ Herald articles clearly exceeds the notability requirements for WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG.
- FYI anyone can access Proquest content via the Wikipedia Library if you have enough edits to your name. An inaccessible source is still a source. However the proquest links above appear to just be the NZ Herald sources already in the article.
- He is also mentioned here[1][2] as replacing another injured player in a world cup qualifying game, with the coach saying, "Tim is another promising young player from the ASB Premiership. He's part of the Olympic team and he'll do the shirt proud if called upon during this tournament." David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Reid out, Smith retains captaincy", RNZ, 2012-05-30, retrieved 2024-11-01
- ^ Woodcock, Fred (31 May 2012), "Myers in for injured Reid in cup qualifier", The Marlborough Express
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A few more comments on the newly found sources should clear this up. Also, the gated sources are not helpful but could go a long way if an alternative link was provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete: The new sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, just a couple of sentences about the subject. The only source I see that passes WP:GNG is the New Zealand Herald, and although he is featured in more than one article there, it will count as only one source unfortunately. DesiMoore (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – I would like to know why the user @Canary757 reverted the edit with my vote. Svartner (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- total accident, no idea it had happened, not sure how, please accept my apologiesCanary757 (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. Svartner (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- total accident, no idea it had happened, not sure how, please accept my apologiesCanary757 (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – The NZ Herald's sources look good enough for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that one source is inadequate. Simione001 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I've made some additions, agree with Das osmnezz that the article needs improvement not deletion. Kiwichris (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The NZH source provided by Beanie is sufficient here. C679 13:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ajay Pal Lamba (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 sources in the article, at least the ones in English (and most of them are in English!), talk about Lamdas arrest of a notorious rapist. A WP:BEFORE revealed more of the same plus social media accounts. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and India. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Police, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Every year, hundreds of IPS and IAS officers are appointed in India, and most of them receive media coverage. They are often highlighted as successful individuals, especially those from poor backgrounds. According to this, it would seem that all of them should qualify for Wikipedia, Sorry. Baqi:) (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hykeham Memorial (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)
Hykeham Memorial is not a place, certainly not a "suburb". It is a ward for elections to North Hykeham Town Council. There is nothing more to say about it, although some demographic statistics exist. It is not notable. (The one mildly interesting thing about it might have been an explanation of its name, as the North Hykeham Memorial Hall is within the ward and presumably gave it the name, but this has not been included.Perhaps the mentions of the Memorial Hall and park in the North Hykeham article could be enhanced with a "(which gives its name to Memorial ward)", but that's all that's needed.)
I note that North Hykeham#Governance does not mention the individual wards, and suggest that a list of wards there would be more appropriate than this article and others, for wards which have no existence except as lines on a map to define, for now, the electorate for lowest-level local elections. Hykeham Memorial is not notable, and Wikipedia does not need this article. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment while we're at it, what's with Hykeham, an utterly pointless "article" that began as an attempt to avoid a railway station from being a red-link, and now attempts to join the substantial urban area of North Hykeham with a couple of country lanes on a map that are south of it and identified as South Hykeham, but really have nothing much in common apart from being adjacent. The railway station that engendered Hykeham is nowhere near South Hykeham and should better have been redirected to North Hykeham. Elemimele (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies to the residents of South Hykeham, which does indeed exist. I have nominated Hykeham for AfD as an unnecessary dab with only two targets, unhelpful to readers. As for Hykeham Memorial, I personally see no value in articles covering the demographics of this low level of electoral region, but I defer to those who enjoy such things. Elemimele (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete We have no need for articles about wards of parishes and it is not a good use of anybody's time to be creating them. Rcsprinter123 (orate) 22:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I agree there should not be articles for parish wards, but Hykeham Memorial (formerly North Hykeham Memorial) (https://statistics.data.gov.uk/atlas/resource?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fstatistical-geography%2FE05014436), with the same boundaries as the parish ward (https://www.lgbce.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/north_kesteven_order_map.pdf), is a ward of North Kesteven district. Peter James (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sourcing currently doesn't meet WP:GNG. All this discussion of non-policy related criteria doesn't matter. What matters is the sourcing, and currently the sourcing either WP:PRIMARY sources or dubious sources like a walkers club website. We need independent secondary sources to cover this topic.4meter4 (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Adventure Ocean (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 sources since 2009. Reads mostly like an advertisement for this product. Sources appear to be either directly from the company or advertorial. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Business. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Longwood Crossing, 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)
The references say this was a post office, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't that how settlements were established back in the day? Having a post office established usually gave more credibility. Obviously not a good argument today for WP:GEO but might explain why the article was created. – The Grid (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is not. Most formal settlements in that era were "platted", that is, someone laid out lots and streets and got people to settle there. These have a characteristic grid pattern which appears all over the midwest. Post offices popped up in response to the need for people to come and get their mail, and they were placed pretty much anywhere: stores, railroad stations (as a rule), and even peoples' homes. The further west one goes, the more likely they were to be isolated, and the4y often moved when the postmaster changed. If you look particularly in Indiana there are a lot of post offices which have short lifespans at the end of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th, when RFD made them superfluous. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - there is hardly anything there from Google Maps. It's only mentioned in passing in effectively one article on Google News (those are all duplicates). starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Social_utility_efficiency (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 definition of SUE as appearing in this article appears to be only discussed by Samuel Merrill and no other authors (excepting SPS and other unreliable sources) in the past several decades. I do not think this meets the notability bar. Affinepplan (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject:
- Weber 1978 "Comparison of Public Choice Systems"
- Origin of the metric under the name "effectiveness", has 22 citations
- "A comparison of efficiency of multicandidate electoral systems" by S Merrill III, American Journal of Political Science, 1984. JSTOR
- Origin of the SUE name, in a peer-reviewed journal, has 153 citations
- Postl, Peter and Giles, Adam, Equilibrium and Welfare of Two-Parameter Scoring Rules (August 1, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2124477 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2124477
- "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (where effectiveness is captured by a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978"
- Evaluating and Comparing Voting Rules behind the Veil of Ignorance. Postl, Peter. L'Actualité Économique. Vol. 93, Iss. 1/2, (Mar-Jun 2017): 1-32,1A-36A.
- "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (… a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978)"
- "According to Weber (1978), efficiency is defined, broadly speaking, as the ratio between the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the actually elected candidate according to the scoring rule and the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the socially optimal candidate." ["D’après Weber (1978), l’efficacité est définie, en gros, comme le rapport entre l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat vraiment élu en fonction de la règle de score et l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat optimal du point de vue social."]
- Le Breton, M., Lepelley, D., Macé, A. & Merlin, V. (2017). Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 203–248. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044720ar
- "This coefficient corresponds to what Weber (1978, 1995) defines as the effectiveness of voting mechanism C." ["Ce coefficient correspond à ce que Weber (1978, 1995) définit comme étant l’effectivité du mécanisme de vote C."]
- Le Breton, M., Blais, A. & Dellis, A. (2017). Élections : comportements, mécanismes et réformes. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044713ar
- "It follows in the line of Weber's pioneering work (1978), which, unfortunately, has been forgotten for too long. … The evaluation of the electoral system is then based on the expected value of the sum of utilities" ["Il est dans la lignée des travaux pionniers de Weber (1978), hélas tombés dans l’oubli pendant trop longtemps. … L’évaluation du système électoral est alors basée sur la valeur espérée de la somme des utilités"]
- "Implications of strategic position choices by candidates" by R Robinette, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
- "I propose a refinement to the social utility efficiency metric to account for the different utility of the candidate’s chosen positions"
- "The relative efficiency of approval and Condorcet voting procedures" by S Merrill III and N Tideman, Rationality and Society, 1991. SAGE Journals
- "the social utility efficiency of approval voting closely approximated that of a Condorcet-completion method (that of Black) and greatly exceeded that of single-vote plurality."
- "Comparing Approval At-Large to Plurality At-Large in Multi-Member Districts" by JA Hansen, ResearchGate. ResearchGate
- "For a particular voting rule, we define the social-utility efficiency (SUE) as the ratio of the sum of the social utilities of all winners…"
- "Influence allocation methods in group decision support systems" by PA Balthazard, WR Ferrell, and DL Aguilar, Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, 1998. SpringerLink
- "the results of analysis or simulation in terms of Condorcet efficiency or social utility efficiency, or strategies that maximize a voter’s influence over the outcome are not particularly useful to us."
- "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules" by AY Kondratev and AS Nesterov, Public Choice, Springer, 2020. SpringerLink
- "however, the Borda rule provides slightly more social utility efficiency"
- "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?" by F Plassmann and TN Tideman, Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, 2014. SpringerLink
- "To our knowledge, Merrill (1984) provided the only previous empirical assessment of the Black rule—a calculation of the social-utility efficiency of this rule."
- "Range voting" by WD Smith, RangeVoting.org, 2000. PDF
- "Merrill’s utility based substudy is suspicious because … All his data for 2-candidate elections had “100.0% social utility efficiency,” in his terminology."
- "Second Problem: How to Satisfy the Condorcet Criteria" by H Nurmi, Comparing Voting Systems, Springer, 1987. SpringerLink
- "the Condorcet winning criterion does not coincide with another almost equally plausible criterion, viz. social utility efficiency (Weber, 1977)."
- "Making multicandidate elections more democratic" by S Merrill, De Gruyter, 1988. De Gruyter
- "Chapter 3: SOCIAL-UTILITY EFFICIENCY"
- "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform" by S Wolk, J Quinn, M Ogren, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
- "To evaluate voting method accuracy and strategy resilience, we present the metrics Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE) and Pivotal Voter Strategic Incentive (PVSI)."
- "The Pathologies of Voting Schemes" by J Zhang, University of Iowa, 2020. University of Iowa
- "The difference between the achieved utility and the maximum potential utility is the Bayesian regret. A related concept is the Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE), which expresses the same idea as Bayesian regret but as a percentage."
- "The case for approval voting" by A Hamlin, W Hua, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
- "Recent research using computer simulations under a Monte Carlo method demonstrates that approval voting also produces winners that reliably maximize voter satisfaction (Quinn 2021)." "The ability of approval voting to select strong winners has been verified in multiple ways. The first of which is through the use of computer modeling (e.g. Smith 2006; Smith and Kok n.d.b.; Quinn 2021)."
- "The case for score voting" by WD Smith, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
- "Computer simulations have been used to compare score versus other election methods by the criterion of Bayesian regret (BR)"
- "Ants, bees, and computers agree range voting is best single-winner system" by WD Smith, rangevoting.org, 2006. rangevoting.org
- "Define the Bayesian regret (BR) of voting system E to be the expected regret exhibited by E."
- "Vote of no confidence" by P McKenna, New Scientist, Elsevier, 2008. ScienceDirect
- "To gauge this he measured “Bayesian regret”, a parameter that attempts to quantify how unhappy groups of people are following a poor outcome."
- "Approval in the echo chamber" by B Armstrong, K Larson, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, benarmstrong.ca, 2017. benarmstrong.ca
- "In particular, Smith provided results from a Bayesian regret analysis of approximately 2.2 million simulations showing…"
- "Gaming the vote: Why elections aren't fair (and what we can do about it)" by W Poundstone, books.google.com, 2008. Google Books
- "He began with an idea for comparing the merits of different voting systems, using a measure called Bayesian regret."
- Not all of these search results refer to the same concept, but there are plenty of hits:
- mind sharing a few? the measure has received coverage nearly exclusively by a dedicated tiny subset of election reform enthusiasts, and as far as I can tell just about zero coverage by any professional sources in the past several decades. Affinepplan (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- please note that the OP edited the comment since the reply. I stand by my statement. Pretty much 100% of this list either contains no mention of SUE or is a low quality / self-published source. Affinepplan (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this criticism of Omegatron's list. I checked three at random and two had, as far as I could see, no mention of this concept whatsoever. The other mentioned it in a single sentence as a possible comparison - not a good barometer of noteworthiness. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- please note that the OP edited the comment since the reply. I stand by my statement. Pretty much 100% of this list either contains no mention of SUE or is a low quality / self-published source. Affinepplan (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Bayesian regret is a different concept and not relevant to show the notability of SUE. and in fact, it already has its own (different) article Bayesian regret
- 2. the vast majority of those results for searches with "social utility efficiency" are pulling up keyword hits for fully different concepts.
- I think you have just proved my point? Affinepplan (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, there are plenty of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure if your Bayesian Regret article is about the same concept. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I spot checked 4 of those sources at random from the list you so helpfully wrote out and none of them even mentioned this metric once. Please don't just bluff and write random links with the assumption that I'm not going to read them. Affinepplan (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- User:Affinepplan Every single one mentions it. I just spend an inordinate amount of time finding direct quotes for you. 😣 — Omegatron (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Bayesian Regret is a different concept. Please do not conflate the two, or think that mentions of bayesian regret implies notability for SUE
- 2. None of William Poundstone, Warren D Smith, Aaron Hamlin et. al, Wolk et al are authoritative sources w.r.t. notability; I would categorize them all as cranks to be quite blunt.
- 3. All the remaining quotes seem to cite the same Merril 1984 directly in passing but do not themselves examine the metric
- I still remain unconvinced that this passes the notability bar. I would provide more detailed critiques of your list but it seems exhaustingly long. Could you maybe pare it down to what, in your opinion, are the most compelling top five sources and we can focus on those? Affinepplan (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- User:Affinepplan Every single one mentions it. I just spend an inordinate amount of time finding direct quotes for you. 😣 — Omegatron (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I spot checked 4 of those sources at random from the list you so helpfully wrote out and none of them even mentioned this metric once. Please don't just bluff and write random links with the assumption that I'm not going to read them. Affinepplan (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, there are plenty of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure if your Bayesian Regret article is about the same concept. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weber 1978 "Comparison of Public Choice Systems"
- Merge I believe a possible solution might be to merge this into Implicit utilitarian voting. Both concepts seem to be very related, i.e., how well does a voting rule approximate the best possible utilitarian welfare, with Social utility efficiency seemingly being more experimental and Implicit utilitarian voting being more theoretical and worst-case oriented. The Implicit utilitarian voting article is not very up-to-date at the moment, however updating it and including Social utility efficiency as a small subsection on precursors might be worth it. Social utility efficiency on its own however does not seem notable enough for its own article. Also pinging @DominikPeters and @Erel Segal. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree these are very similar topics and merging them makes sense. I am less clear what the framing and the title of the merged article would ideally be. Currently, "implicit utilitarian voting" suggests that the aim is to design systems that do well on the distortion measure, while "social utility efficiency" stresses the idea of a metric. To me, the metric framing makes more sense. DominikPeters (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree on the metric angle making more sense. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- perhaps distortion deserves its own article? based loosely on the summaries in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370215000892 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00911
- and the SUE can be folded in as a side note. I am happy to defer to your recommendation of a merge rather than a delete. Affinepplan (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree on the metric angle making more sense. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, that's a completely different topic and it would be inappropriate to merge this into that. That is a voting system, this is a metric for measuring the performance of voting systems. That's like merging fuel efficiency into Toyota Corolla.
- There is no problem with this article and no reason to delete or merge it; just leave it be. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- there is a problem --- the problem of WP:Notability Affinepplan (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm hesitant to merge these, because these are two very different approaches (minimax regret vs. expected utility).
- If they were merged, I'd agree with DominikPeters that merging in the opposite direction is probably better. Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept, while relative distortion is a new-ish introduction from CS/algorithms—actually, the first paper discussing distortion (in 2006) talks about the already very long history of expected utility approaches to social choice:
– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)most work in economics assumes cardinal preferences and takes a utilitarian approach. This viewpoint dates to the work of Bentham at the end of the 18th century, who argued that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." [...] The utilitarian approach is prevalent, for example, in mechanism design, and perhaps even more so in algorithmic mechanism design [Nisan 2007].
Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept
- again, to be clear, this article is not about "expected utility." This article is about a so-called "SUE" which of course while bearing resemblances to expected utilities is not identical.
- Please, I ask you again, remain on topic to this deletion discussion for this specific topic, and do not draw irrelevant comparisons or other non-sequiturs to obviously notable topics. Affinepplan (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree these are very similar topics and merging them makes sense. I am less clear what the framing and the title of the merged article would ideally be. Currently, "implicit utilitarian voting" suggests that the aim is to design systems that do well on the distortion measure, while "social utility efficiency" stresses the idea of a metric. To me, the metric framing makes more sense. DominikPeters (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. The idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility is social choice and welfare economics 101. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- this article is not about generally "the idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility." this article is about a particular --- nonnotable --- metric. I guess you would be referring to Utility or Comparison of voting rules#Utilitarian_models ? which yes, both of those are reasonable and notable articles & subsections.
- Please focus on specifically the article for which I have nominated deletion, and not the general concept of "utility in social choice 101" Affinepplan (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can demonstrate noteworthiness. I don't think this has been done so far. Omegatron's list of articles seems to include some low-quality sources and many articles that don't actually mention or discuss this concept. And Closed Limelike Curves' comment is only really a defense of the much broader topic of comparing voting rules based on utility. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ahh, ok, I think I understand the issue now. From what I can tell, you and Jannikp are interpreting the question as being about social utility efficiency as a mathematical expression (i.e.
actual_utility / ideal_utility
). I agree that's not notable, since it's just a slightly-different way of expressing the utility. However, DominikPeters, Omegatron, and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature, which is exclusively in the context of the SUE of a voting rule. In other words, the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules (because SUE is specific to social choice). - But all of this is a bit of a digression. Regardless of the title, the article mostly discusses comparisons of voting rules based on their expected utility, and the article actually discusses many slightly-different variations on the same metric (e.g. Bayesian regret, VSE, and SUE). This slight mismatch might warrant retitling it, but not deleting the content entirely. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- > and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature,
- it is not used in the literature.
- > the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules
- no it is not. it is about SUE.
- can you please stay on-topic and stop muddying the discussion with unrelated commentary about the general concept of utility in social choice? this is the third time you've done so. Affinepplan (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me like the article Social utility efficiency as currently written is actually a particular metric. And based on a Google Scholar search, it doesn't seem like the phrase "social utility efficiency" is widely used in the literature at all. So unfortunately I don't follow your response. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- User:Gumshoe2: Are there at least 3 sources? Yes. Are they reliable? Yes; at least 9 are peer-reviewed academic research. Are they independent of the original subject? Yes, at least 15 different unrelated authors. Is the coverage more than a trivial mention? Yes, it is even the main topic of some papers. This clearly meets the notability criteria. — Omegatron (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you clarify a particular three you have in mind? As I said, at least some of the articles you gave don't seem to even mention the topic. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ahh, ok, I think I understand the issue now. From what I can tell, you and Jannikp are interpreting the question as being about social utility efficiency as a mathematical expression (i.e.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this AfD does not qualify for "Speedy keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Comparison of voting rules#Evaluation by metrics. The sources provided here show that its mention would be due there. Regardless of notability, which I take no position on, this topic is presented most clearly with other metrics for voting rules. I'm not concerned about making that section too long because I think it should probably be split out into its own article anyways, also for editorial reasons. In any case, this seems like a plausible search term; and redirection would be preferable to deletion. McYeee (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- No objections to merging it into a page about evaluating voting rules based on different metrics. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it can be merged with Implicit utilitarian voting. --Erel Segal (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Comparison of voting rules#Evaluation by metrics. I think the sourcing is there for WP:SIGCOV so a merge is not necessary. However, it would not be out of place in the Comparison of voting rules article. Oppose merge to Implicit utilitarian voting as these are two separate but related topics that can not be easily contained under a single title/scope.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Comparison of voting rules#Evaluation by metrics or a dedicated article about
thesuch methods of quantifying the performance of voting methods. I agree in particular with the suggestions and reasoning of 4meter4 and McYeee above. — RVJ (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC) - Keep or merge to Comparison of voting rules#Evaluation by metrics or a dedicated article. If pressed, I would prefer keep or creating a new article to merge because the comparison of voting rules article is quite unwieldy and hard to navigate at the moment. Adding more text to it could make it even harder to read unless it's also cleaned up considerably. Apart from this caveat, I agree with RVJ. Wotwotwoot (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Clinton String Quartet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; I searched and was unable to find any meaningful coverage to establish notability for this music group. Left guide (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't find sufficient coverage either.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 13:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- List of films shown within films (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 list has a trivial and unverifiable concept, with only one of the included films (WALL-E) including a source that demonstrates the importance of the scene to the film.
This article was created in the last edits (that are visible to non-admins) of User:I believe in Ryan Reynolds, who created an unmaintainable List of film showings and pointy List of protected articles on Wikipedia right before their block for disruptive editing on film articles, so it's probable that this article was created as a joke. QuietCicada chirp 13:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. QuietCicada chirp 13:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per NLIST and NOTDB. This is much more suited for something like TV Tropes. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 16:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - rather arbitrary criterion not discussed in sources. --Altenmann >talk 17:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Something like this could work if it was written from the perspective of say, story within a story, where the main focus of the article is on how the real or fictional film is used as a narrative device. That would take a lot of work, though, and we already have a similar article for fictional films here. Right now this feels more like trivia, as there are a lot of films that show other films within them to varying extents. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 21:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Kole Akintujoye (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 don't think this person meets GNG. They claim to have received a global recognition award but that award doesn't appear to be notable either. Most of the sources seem to be blogs and interviews Gbawden (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Health and fitness, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill business person without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been edited extensively. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- keep. Satisfies WP:GNG at least as a filmmaker. --Altenmann >talk 17:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There's a clear-cut pass of WP:FILMMAKER here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Bobo Ajudua (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)
Closed as delete in AFD just June 2023, the article found its way back again. But nothing has changed. The current sources are 95 percent press statement or covertly sponsored articles announcing new business deals Ednabrenze (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, Law, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Sources still don't impress me, I'm not seeing much beyond business deals done and the like. I also don't find much more in RS since the last time we looked at this about a year ago. Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Sources are regular PR business coverage. --Altenmann >talk 18:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Procedural keep. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 21:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- DWRD (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)
Reason Jerick Reforba (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 4. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural keep, no deletion rationale given. Geschichte (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- From Me to You (Crunchy Black album) (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)
Per the first discussion, no evidence that this album is notable, and since the artist's page is just a redirect to the far more notable group he is a part of, this doesn't even serve a purpose as a redirect. No chart positions, no certifications, only one review that really goes in-depth about the album (the AllMusic writeup is more of an overview of the release, while the XXL piece is an interview so not independent), no evidence of notability to pass WP:NALBUMS. My attempt to have the page speedy deleted per WP:A9 (see the last discussion) was declined. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is tougher than it looks because the album received a couple of pro reviews though they were pretty short. However, the rapper was declared non-notable outside of Three 6 Mafia in this recent AfD, so it's tough to justify an album article. The album's existence could be mentioned briefly at the Three 6 Mafia article, especially because Crunchy Black is still with them, at least intermittently. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Thin, thin reviews for this album, in RS, but still just not enough. That's all I can find as well. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Turkish tango music (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 some sources such as https://www.idildergisi.com/ozet.php?dili=2&ref=1619560991&did=241 but am not sure notable enough Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep 'Turkish Tango in its 100th Year' in Istanbul: Melodic fusion of mastery, movement https://istanbultarihi.ist/770-the-tango-in-istanbul, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=966030 . Please, search for sources before nominating an article. LefterDalaka (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Like said again, There are applicable references- we just need to incorporate them. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: This topic has a full book about it: Tango and the Dancing Body in Istanbul (ISBN 978-1000469936). (comment is by User:Why? I Ask Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC))
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Neon Hunk (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 believe this article should be deleted for a few reasons; the first and most major is notability. I do not believe, at least as of this time, this duo is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. The article lacks sources, only featuring one that was put in the article in 2015. I've searched for sources to add to the article and can only find one article, a Pitchfork review, on an album they published, rather than the duo themselves. The article uses non-neutral language, such as "other noise/freak weirdos". It also contains a lot of unsourced speculation, stating that part of the duo is working on a full-length album, but this has never been published or confirmed by any source. Most of the wikilinks on the article go to non-existant pages, and no pages for the discography of the duo exist at all. This page has existed for years (since 2004 according to the edit history) and in that time, no verifiable and trustworthy sources have given notable information about the duo. Beachweak (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment there's a Pitchfork review ([4]) and an AllMusic review ([5]). toweli (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- These reviews are focused on an album created by the duo, Smarmymob, rather than the duo themselves. Beachweak (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I was just noting the existence of two reviews. Leaning delete, unless more sources are found. toweli (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- These reviews are focused on an album created by the duo, Smarmymob, rather than the duo themselves. Beachweak (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- delete no sources to establish notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Also found reviews of Smarmymob in Stylus Magazine [6], Dusted Magazine [7], Suburban Voice [8] and this more trivial output: [9] and this one: [10] @Beachweak of course reviews are of albums. Albums are what musicians make. Do you propose an article is written about the album instead? Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think if there are enough reviews of the album (which there are proving to be), an article could be written about Smarmymob; however, the article on the duo themselves doesn't seem notable enough to be kept, at least as of right now. It's ten years old and only has one, weak source. Beachweak (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you agree that Neon Hunk then should be preserved as a redirect to Smarmybob, failing a keep outcome here? Geschichte (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea to turn the page into a redirect rather than deleting it entirely; somebody would have to write the article on the album, though. Maybe delete the page until an article is published and then turn it into a redirect? Beachweak (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you agree that Neon Hunk then should be preserved as a redirect to Smarmybob, failing a keep outcome here? Geschichte (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think if there are enough reviews of the album (which there are proving to be), an article could be written about Smarmymob; however, the article on the duo themselves doesn't seem notable enough to be kept, at least as of right now. It's ten years old and only has one, weak source. Beachweak (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note that under WP:A9, if the band/musician is non-notable and has no article, then an article for their album needs solid evidence that it has significance. I'm not sure if the few scattered reviews for Smarmybob will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- How many would it need? As far as getting reviews go, it doesn't get much more significant than Pitchfork, and I think the other ones look very promising in sum. I'm somewhat struggling to take the proposition seriously that an album with Pitchfork, Allmusic and other reviews would be regarded as a speedy candidate. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- In my view, WP:A9 is there for a reason. An album article is not particularly encyclopedic when an interested reader cannot learn more about the band because they're not notable enough for their own article. That's my take on this side discussion about the album, and otherwise I am undecided about deleting or keeping the band and will have to leave it at that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- The issue isn't about the album; my proposition is to delete the page ABOUT the duo. In the future, there could be an article written about the album, but the duo Neon Hunk, at least right now, are not very notable source wise. If you review the article right now, there is one source that isn't very descriptive (and currently leads to a 404). Apart from that, the entire article is unsourced. I still think it should be deleted unless more sources about the duo are found. Beachweak (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was replying to Doomsdayer Geschichte (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- How many would it need? As far as getting reviews go, it doesn't get much more significant than Pitchfork, and I think the other ones look very promising in sum. I'm somewhat struggling to take the proposition seriously that an album with Pitchfork, Allmusic and other reviews would be regarded as a speedy candidate. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note that under WP:A9, if the band/musician is non-notable and has no article, then an article for their album needs solid evidence that it has significance. I'm not sure if the few scattered reviews for Smarmybob will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comments: as a rule, I ask that proponents of new sources to keep an article be included for me to evaluate the results for WP: HEY. Bearian (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:GNG per the sources presented in this discussion thread.4meter4 (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- The Little Panda Fighter (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 do not believe this rip-off film is notable enough for inclusion. The article has 7 sources; however, sources 1 and 5 are merely lists of bad rip-off films where it is briefly mentioned, source 2 is an IMDB equivalent, source 4 is an amazon listing, source 6 and 7 are youtube videos about the film, and source 3 is about the studio and doesn't once mention the movie.
This film fails WP:NFILM as I can't find any more reliable sources out there. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's true it should be deleted because I tried to make another article about another rip off film called Chop Kick Panda and it got denied for creation and when trying to fix the article and resubmitting it, it later got the ability to resubmit it disabled. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's not a reason for deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- delete insufficient coverage for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: sources on the page+https://www.topito.com/top-plagiats-dessins-animes https://collider.com/worst-animated-movies-2000s-ranked-letterboxd/ https://collider.com/animated-movies-2000s-worst-ranked/ and even https://collider.com/worst-animated-movies-letterboxd/ https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26648/7-hollywood-ripoffs-titles-and-posters-and-plots-you-wont-believe + https://www.avclub.com/don-t-look-directly-at-these-horrifying-children-s-movi-1798257240 + https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/animated-mockbusters-list-94032.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160410042024/http://news.nster.com/1079-funny-and-ridiculous-rip-offs-of-famous-movies.html At the very least a redirect to List of Brazilian films of 2008 or to List of animated feature films of 2008 or to the 'original' film seems warranted in my humble opinion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've alreadt explained how I don't believe the sources in the article are notable or significant; none of the sources you link above appear to me to be significant coverage but mostly "fun lists" which aren't enough for inclusion. I also don't think the article title is notable enough for a redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 19:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- And you have every right to, I'm merely stating my case as to why deletion is correct. We'll see what the consensus is. CoconutOctopus talk 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've alreadt explained how I don't believe the sources in the article are notable or significant; none of the sources you link above appear to me to be significant coverage but mostly "fun lists" which aren't enough for inclusion. I also don't think the article title is notable enough for a redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 19:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Vídeo Brinquedo#Filmography as per Mushy Yank. Honestly all they sources they gave don't indicate WP:SIGCOV - they are all passing mentions in a list and the only things I could find specifically about it are ugi like IMDb, Rotten Tomato, Fandom so clearly doesn't qualify for its own article, but, evidently the studio does so I don't see harm in redirecting it to a place in the studio's article where it is listedKeep per Mushy Yank's work. WP:SIGCOV states that "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", and the sources are about cringe-y films, not the movie, but they do discuss it in detail - with WP:NFILM describes as not being a "plot summary with no critical commentary" (these sources do add critical commentary) and WP:SIGCOV describes as ensuring "no original research is needed to extract the content", which is very clearly evident as they describe the both the film's plot, the context in which it is made, and add critical commentary. Concerns are raised by other users about reliability, but, one of the sources is Colliders, which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSN for films [11]. MolecularPilot 22:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- For example, do you consider the following paragraphs, taken from the sources above, non-significant? (It's a real question) From my understanding of significance on WP, they are not passing mentions:
(MentalFloss)How does it compare to the original? Take Kung Fu Panda, render it in MS Paint, then take the MS Paint version and render it on an Etch-a-Sketch. We’re not done yet. Put that Etch-a-Sketch version back into MS Paint and color it using the paint bucket tool and…jeez, that still looks way too good. Any way we can do this all on a Commodore 64?The Little Panda Fighter is about a world inhabited by bears that all look like someone punched a jar of Play-Doh in the face. One particularly perverse panda spends an unsettling amount of time in his dank basement, but instead of begging others to put the lotion on the skin, this panda dreams of becoming a ballerina. Unfortunately, he is forced to become a kick boxer (typical panda struggle). Will he find a way to bring these two worlds together? The movie probably cares less than you do. Also, the panda falls down a lot. Because he’s fat. Comedy!
(Collider A)The Little Panda Fighter follows the story of a clumsy panda named Pancada, who works at a boxing club and has big aspirations of becoming a professional dancer. After a strange miscommunication error, Pancada accidentally ends up being a combatant at his club's upcoming fight, being mistaken for a legendary panda fighter who challenged the club's champion. Pandaca now must train for his upcoming battle, and finds that his dancing skills may just be helpful for him in the ring.As far as animated rip-off movies go, it's hard to get more blatant and obvious than The Little Panda Fighter, which is attempting to leech off of the success of Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda. While Kung Fu Panda was filled with exceptional and groundbreaking visuals, fun characters, and exhilarating battle sequences, The Little Panda Fighter features none of these positive aspects. Its minuscule budget resulted in a film with primarily lackluster dialogue sequences and dated animation quality, with a plot that only resembles Kung Fu Panda via having a Panda main character.
(Collider B)A major trend that persisted throughout the 2000s was the abundance of cheap ripoff films that were released at the same time as more popular animated films as an attempt to siphon business from blockbuster titles. While this trend was just as prevalent in live-action as it was in animation, the cheaply animated examples more egregiously show the variance in quality between these poor excuses for films and the actual films they're ripping off. One of the most comically inept examples is The Little Panda Fighter, a blatant ripoff of Kung Fu Pandathat is unabashed in its copying. The Little Panda Fighter is a culmination of all the trends and facets that made these ripoff films both so terrible in execution and abundant and unavoidable in bargain bins of the era. While it's blatant to anyone with eyes just how much the film is using the likeness of Kung Fu Panda, the actual film itself couldn't be any more dissimilar, following a story of a panda who doesn't want to fight, but instead wants to dance. Especially when the original Dreamworks film exists, there's little reason to ever give The Little Panda Fighter the attention it so deeply craves.
(Collider C)The Little Panda Fighter follows. the story of Pancada, a panda who works at a boxing club and has big dreams of becoming a world-famous dancer. After an unfortunate case of mistaken identity, Pancada accidentally gets caught up and is scheduled for an upcoming fight at his boxing club, and begins to train for what will be the fight of his life.It's clear from the get-go that The Little Panda Fighter 's primary purpose and reason for existing is to leech off of and scam unsuspecting viewers who mistook the film for Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda, released the same year. Although, unlike the masterful animation style of the Dreamworks film, The Little Panda Fighter's cheap animation style leaves much to be desired. The film also features a hilariously strange plot, further amplified by the vocal performances.
(NSTER, Archived)This movie could be a “Kung Fu Panda” spin-off about an unknown brother who managed to survive, but was separated from Po. And yet it’s just a trashy uninspired rip-off with a similar plot and lower budget. Besides, the panda on the poster doesn’t seem like a normal animal. It looks more like a host for some crazy fitness show for toddlers. Just kidding..
- I consider significance to be a threshold, and I would tend to think that it is reached here. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- (sorry for the late reply, I forgot to add this page to my watch list) - after reviewing the policies at WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV I think the coverage you've provided does count as "significant". Specifically, WP:NFILM says that plot summaries do not count - but these also include critical comments. I think, together, they create significant coverage. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as overall there is enough critical commentary from independent reliable sources identified in this discussion such as Collider, NSTER, and Mental Floss to enable the pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree some of it's sources needs to be removed, especially the Amazon order because Amazon is (what I believe) 100% not reliable for referencing on Wikipedia because it's just a shopping website that won't educate Wikipedia editors or readers that much. Furthermore, Amazon is somehow a target for spammers and advertisers to spam URLs on websites, which means Wikimedia and Wikipedia admins do need to remove Amazon links from articles on Wikipedia. A reliable website does need to make articles about this knock-off movie so we can cite a reliable source. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Thoothukudi district as an AtD. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Peyanvilai (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 sources since 2008. Article appears to be entirely WP:OR. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect Couldn't find any sources for the topic. Agreeing with User:Smallangryplanet that it is WP:OR. Either delete or redirect to Thoothukudi District. TNM101 (chat) 11:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I found this article and added it to the article. Unsourced claims should be removed.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Thoothukudi district. Not opposed to Delete. No reliable source with significant coverage on the village. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Arumuganeri. Apparently, this was a former village that has now been merged into Arumuganeri (another former village now designated as a town). The following query may help find some sources: site:gov.in "Arumuganeri" "Peyanvilai". utcursch | talk 01:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Thoothukudi district per RangersRus. This is a very common outcome. Bearian (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Kanjikoil as an AtD. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Perumapalayam (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 sources since 2008. A search for RS shows mostly references to this page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It’s long overdue time to clean up. Bearian (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment found some sources and added to the article. Unverified claims should be removed.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Erode district. Not opposed to Delete. No significant coverage on the village in reliable sources and evaluation of added sources have just passing mention. Still fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect Not mentioned in census data for Erode district, so likely a non-official local name for a settlement or neighborhood within Kanjikoil. I would suggest redirecting to Kanjikoil rather than the district. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- List of cinemas in Malaysia (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)
Whole list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOR. Only one cinema has an article and most entries listed are cinema chains with cinemas attached to shopping malls. All references appear to links to the cinema's official website. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Malaysia, and Companies. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: seems a perfectly standard topic for a list. Meets WP:NLIST as the topic has been the subject of coverage as a set (see Lee, A. Y. B. (2022), Malaysian Cinema in the New Millennium: Transcendence Beyond Multiculturalism. Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, p. 1, for a start, please) but WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Mushy Yank (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing remarkably informational or navigational about this list. It's a directory of run-of-the-mill movie cinemas. The only sources are official websites to the cinema franchises. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Nothing remarkably informational or navigational
(emphasis mine) or nothing informational or navigational? Because if it the first, it's a highly subjective comment. Indeed, in my opinion, it helps navigate in the category and articles about cinema theatres in the world and offers informations about cinema in Malaysia that could seem of use. Did you open the book I mentioned, by any chance? Cleanup (sources, cuts) may be done later and is probably needed, yes. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)- Can you reference anywhere in the book that makes a list of run of the mill cinema chains in a particular country notable? The only other list of cinema articles similar to this list at least have a range of notable entries. Ajf773 (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure I understood your question: but read p. 1, yes. Mushy Yank (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you reference anywhere in the book that makes a list of run of the mill cinema chains in a particular country notable? The only other list of cinema articles similar to this list at least have a range of notable entries. Ajf773 (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing remarkably informational or navigational about this list. It's a directory of run-of-the-mill movie cinemas. The only sources are official websites to the cinema franchises. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- delete Obviously unencyclodedic topic, even ignoring WP:NOTDIR. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Not a list of extraordinary or interesting things, just branches of chains. We have "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" as an example in WP:NOTDIR and this list has us pretty squarely there! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Would be interesting to know how the article falls under NOTDIR exactly. All relevant issues mentioned seem to be cleanup and sourcing issues (the topic as a set is not "obviously unencyclopedic", quite the opposite, and comparing it with the List of restaurants specialised in food X in the city of Z is probably a joke. At this rate and with that reasoning, what list of cinema theatres is notable? Only List of cinemas?;DMushy Yank (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC) (Sorry but I think that
Not a list of extraordinary or interesting things
says it all. I'm not interested in the topic, it's not exciting, so delete? Sorry but no.)- Don't see anyone around here laughing... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOTDIR. A list of mostly non notable entries. LibStar (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Revive (band). Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Trafalgar Street (album) (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)
Reference is an opinion piece and there aren't other sources for this album, the band's article itself is barely referenced and seems to be taken from a no longer active website. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Revive (band). Some of this band's other albums received multiple pro reviews in Christian Rock publications like Jesus Freak Hideout and Cross Rhythms. I can find no dedicated reviews for this album and it is only briefly mentioned in the magazine article that is used as a source. However, that is not merely an "opinion" piece as said by the nominator. There are also possibiities for improving the band's article, the current state of which is not relevant for this album-only discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have added some improvements to the band's article. See WP:NEXIST on how to not condemn an article after looking at it just briefly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Revive (band). No prejudice on the nominator for not spending a lifetime perusing and/or improving the Revive (band) article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- List of horror fiction writers (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)
Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. This article is just a simple list without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit, and no WP:SIGCOV indicating this list is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Article contains original research as well with many questionable entries where the corresponding article doesn't even mention horror fiction writer. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, once suitably pruned and referenced to address the objections given above. There are certainly plenty of lists from WP:RS of top 10, top 100, etc. horror books, and that might be a good place to start. See User:The Anome/Draft/List of horror writers for a fairly defensible list of writers, each cited to at least one WP:RS as either being notable for being a horror writer or as the author of at least one notable work of horror fiction. — The Anome (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Lists of people, and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, navigational lists like this don't have to be an encyclopedic topic (and nor do they even need to be referenced), they're here to help the reader find pre-existing articles on their members. This list is helpful to the reader who wants to know the biographical details of that author they remember reading last year, "...who's name began with a B... or was it a C... Martha someone??". Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: and if the revised version was to be enhanced by nationality and dates, like the current version, that would add value as well. I'd also point out that the topic of horror authors has been discussed in many published works, eg. to name just the first two hits of Google Books, ISBN 9780786462490, ISBN 9781587150111... — The Anome (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not much of a fan of navigational lists in general, inasmuch as they oftentimes aren't well suited to their intended purpose and don't have well-thought-out WP:LISTCRITERIA, but this seems like a rather defensible one both in terms of scope and design (the real solution would be some kind of technical solution that would make maintaining these kinds of lists manually unnecessary, but that's a separate discussion). Being a navigational list and thus being restricted to entries with stand-alone articles per WP:CSC keeps this from expanding unboundedly as some lists are wont to do, and entries having only the minimal biographical information keeps it from becoming bloated with a bunch of WP:Original research commentary on the entries as is unfortunately also common on list articles (as long as the entries stick to it, at least). The corresponding category (Category:Horror writers) appears to contain a few hundred articles on writers in its various sub-categories (I could, admittedly, be way off in that estimate), so it shouldn't get so long as to necessitate a split or similar. As for inclusion criteria, I might suggest a simple "described as a horror writer by WP:Reliable sources" or something along those lines. TompaDompa (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: TompaDompa and I have now extensively reworked this list article into a version that is now fully sourced and purged of excess fluff. The criterion for inclusion is now "notable writer who has published significant work in the horror field" (notability of the author to be shown by the existence of a properely sourced WP article, and the significance of the work by the cite given here, eg. one or more of their horror works being the subject of WP:RS that describes it as such, or the presence of the work/works in a "best of" horror writing list published by a WP:RS.) — The Anome (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can't really take credit for much more than working on the formatting... TompaDompa (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: TompaDompa and I have now extensively reworked this list article into a version that is now fully sourced and purged of excess fluff. The criterion for inclusion is now "notable writer who has published significant work in the horror field" (notability of the author to be shown by the existence of a properely sourced WP article, and the significance of the work by the cite given here, eg. one or more of their horror works being the subject of WP:RS that describes it as such, or the presence of the work/works in a "best of" horror writing list published by a WP:RS.) — The Anome (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Ardabil. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ali Daei Stadium (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 refs on the page for a long time. It's tough to read sources from Iran but this one is quite spicy - it is about an official complaint that the stadium has never been finished. I can't tell if it has ever actually been used for sport, however the news clips as far as I can tell looking at translated pages appear to be regurgitated from official sources (announcing the opening and this one about complaints). I don't think it is notable because it's an unfinished building project. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Iran. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ardabil – Non notable stadium. Svartner (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 19:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Game Sack (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 enjoy the channel a bunch, but this is non-notable stuff. The article reads like a well-compiled collection of trivial mentions and scarcely any of the citations are significant and in-depth enough to provide reliable background about the creators and establish why their channel and its content is notable. Most citations are passing mentions in unrelated articles, like Scott Wozniak citing them in a list of influences or HG101 briefly mentioning a video of theirs exists. There's just not enough about the channel as the primary subject matter of the citations. A quick search for reliable coverage only yields the Vice article on their hiatus. VRXCES (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. VRXCES (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunate delete. Only SigCov is aforementioned Vice article, and a search only gave me a bunch of football shite. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable and not receiving significant coverage. The sources provided seem pretty sketchy, too. --My Pants Metal (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable and insignificant coverage. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- List of Chaotic 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)
Could not find sources on the characters nor the list as a whole. There is some content that can be merged with Chaotic (TV series), but a lot of it is WP:PLOTSUMMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and trim appropriately. The subject of the list is Chaotic (TV series), so notability is not in question, except by editors who dispute the first half of the statement. Nothing stops you from cleaning up plot summary now, which will need to happen in any event. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the appropriate trimming suggestion that was brought up by @Jclemens:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPLOT are failed by this list, since it is totally unreferenced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Zxcvbnm. Totally unreferenced and fails WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Just so everyone is aware, I agree that Chaotic (TV series) is notable. The characters themselves do not have notability on their own or as part of a list, hence the AfD. Conyo14 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Zxcvbnm. The main characters are already covered on the main article for the series, and due to the lack of sourcing and the fact that the characters listed here aside from the main characters are all completely minor characters that should not be listed here, appropriate trimming would essentially mean that a separate list would not be needed. Rorshacma (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but the consensus is leaning towards Deletion right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This unsourced list is largely WP:PLOT, and I agree that it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The Chaotic (TV series) article is enough to cover the series. In fact, some of the content can be merged with that article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Rorshacma. This is already covered at the main topic, and doesn't have the sources to support a separate list. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sahla Parveen (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)
Nothing has changed since the last AFD. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The reference to Deccan Chronicle is valid. However, the inclusion of 'Amazon' as a reference is inappropriate and does not meet reliable sourcing standards. Given these sources, the subject may not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG), which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Therefore, additional references from reputable publications would be needed to establish notability effectively. Baqi:) (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the DC's author seemed dubious, but further review revealed that Cris S is an assistant editor at DC. After removing Amazon and Goodreads, the other three sources don't meet the significant coverage requirement.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: While some of the reliability of the sources can be verified, the article cannot stand alone as the subject does not meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG criteria.--— MimsMENTOR talk 07:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Ah, I felt it was ok to proceed with the article content although I had created a content almost similar to the previous one which was deleted again through the formal Afd procedure last year. I was a bit complacent and was bit desperate on maximizing points for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month/2024 contest. However, jury panel has rated zero marks for this article due to the article being nominated for deletion. Abishe (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Elena Felipe and Bernadina Rivera (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)
Could not find coverage to meet WP:ARTIST. The one source provided may be indepth but one needs multiple sources to demonstrate notability. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Mexico. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ri Myong-jun (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)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect to 2007 FIFA U-17 World Cup squads#North Korea as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)- Weak keep Bits around and more on the web to digest, I found little bits with [12], [13], youtube, [14]. There appears to be more sources around on the internet about him which I can't be bothered to go through. The nature of his career shows there was interest in him and some reporters have picked up on that and reported it. You just need to go looking, an extensive WP:BEFORE hasn't been done here in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Considering that information about these North Korean players is almost impossible, here at least we have something. I'm going to withdraw my vote, I don't know if it's enough for WP:SIGCOV, but let's expand the discussion. Svartner (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Of the four sources, only the first seems to be decent. Source #2 is primary, Source #3 is against WP:LINKSTOAVOID, while Source #4 is a brief mention in match report. None of them pass WP:GNG in my opinion. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Considering that information about these North Korean players is almost impossible, here at least we have something. I'm going to withdraw my vote, I don't know if it's enough for WP:SIGCOV, but let's expand the discussion. Svartner (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per my reply to Govvy and Svartner. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Svartner:, I found [15], [16], and [17] among other sources which is decent for a North Korena player. Definitelyy has offline North Korean sources too. One of few North Korean players to have played professionally for a few European clubsm and has 5 goals in 9 games for the national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why do people often say good sources for a North Korean footballer like the bar is lower for some reason? The nationality of the player isn't relevant and then also speculating about the apparent existence of offline sources. Simione001 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Why do people often say good sources for a North Korean footballer like the bar is lower for some reason?
– do you understand the situation of media in North Korea? Do you realize that they don't have real media? Why should they be treated with the same strictness as those from countries with extensive media? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)- @Simione001 I think you do a good job filtering these articles from North Korean players since the majority are in fact unable to be kept. But it is valid when something comes up to establish the minimum coverage. There is a little more tolerance throughout the context of the country's regime, where there is no independent media. Svartner (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why do people often say good sources for a North Korean footballer like the bar is lower for some reason? The nationality of the player isn't relevant and then also speculating about the apparent existence of offline sources. Simione001 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Could we get an assessment of the recently found sources? Unfortunately, we have the same guidelines for notability regardless a subject's nationality. The rules can bent but that would involve you persuading other editor's to your assessment of suitability of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)- Delete. Nowhere even close to SIGCOV in IRS sources! If someone doesn't get coverage because their location doesn't have the reliable sources or media interest to report on them, they are not notable, regardless of level of achievement. WSC magazine has a trivial mention . Socceroos is a league website, not independent of its players (or their opponents), and is also a trivial mention . A Sky Sports interview some random person copied and posted on YouTube is primary, non-independent, and probably violates copyright somewhere . The website for a football tournament is obviously not independent of its participants, and anyway the coverage is a trivial, primary passing mention in a match play-by-play . Some dude's personal football blog is clearly not RS and absolutely unacceptable for a BLP . An interview with FC Vestsjælland's director is not independent or secondary . Nor is an interview with their head coach . Even if there were two articles in there that actually had IRS SIGCOV, the subject would still fail SUSTAINED, as everything is related to the single event of him having a trial run with the Danish club. JoelleJay (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find the substantial coverage, not even one, to help this pass WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:FOOTYN. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I see very limited support for deletion here, and a meaningful improvement in sourcing during the four weeks this AfD has been open. Owen× ☎ 16:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Julie Breathnach-Banwait (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 don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [18], and some analysis here [19] and here [20]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This also seems to be a RS [21], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- User:Oaktree b I ran into that one as well but it turns out that she is part of the "Editorial collective" so it may not be considered independent. Then again, I can't imagine that there are many Gaelic speakers in Australia who aren't part of that collective. This is a tough one due to the minority language. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify per User:Colin Ryan with hopes that they can locate some independent sources, perhaps through the Irish press. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Spinifex&Sand is right that when an author has only one notable work, and the coverage is of that work rather than the author, we typically have an article just on the notable work. But when there are multiple notable works, NAUTHOR#3 does actually allow notability to be inherited for an author bio, if there is coverage of their "collective body of work". After some digging I think I see two WP:NBOOK candidates:
- And two books that don't meet NBOOK but do have one review (so a second would pass NBOOK):
- I also found this profile in The Irish Scene, which suggests notability, and this interview which does not but could be useful in fleshing out the article if kept. I have a hard time getting excited about only 2 NBOOKs as a "collective body of work", but I think some would consider that sufficient. I lean keep because I think the profiles in the Irish Times, Anglo&Celtic Australia Magazine, and now The Irish Scene together squeak by for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. There's enough here for both GNG and AUTHOR in my opinion. Note that the interview brought by LEvalyn includes a substantive introduction that would I think count towards GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources found by those commenting in this discussion have proved WP:SIGCOV is met. Passes both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The Cane as a Weapon (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)
Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN,
is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies
. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN,
- And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.
- So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [28]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK per the sources found by PARAKANYAA, ReaderofthePack, and Toughpigs.4meter4 (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cordillera Negra (Chile) (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 seems to be a mountain, not a mountain range, in Chile. In any case, I cannot find any references to this mountain except a dot on a map which refers to Wikipedia as its source. Fails WP:NGEO. Please note there is a mountain range with the name Cordillera Negra in Peru, but that is a different story. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Chile. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons discussed by nominator. I cannot find any additional information and sources.
- Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete couldn't find sources for Chile one Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
DeleteNeutral Searched for book and scholar sources but could not find any. Probably a hoax. Note the article creator is permabanned: his creations should be reviewed. --Bedivere (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've had a closer look at the topic and it seems to have been covered/mentioned in some publications, including this one by SERNAGEOMIN (geological and mining service of Chile). Also there's an offline work named Carta Geológica de la Décima Región (SUBIABRE & ROJAS, 1994), cited in this thesis, which also refers to the Cordillera Negra. --Bedivere (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well found, @Bedivere! If I read it correctly, the Chilean Cordillera Negra then lies in Futrono municipality, between Caunahue River to the north and Calcurrupe River and Curinilahue river to the south, between Llifén in the west and Huilo-Huilo Biological Reserve in the east. More to the west lies the Cerros de Quimán, another article created by the same permblockied user @Dentren. If this is right, I propose to redirect both Cordillera Negra (Chile) and Cerros de Quimán articles to the geography section of Los Ríos Region, where both Cordillera Negra and Cerros de Quimán should be mentioned in the paragraph on Precordillera. Or should it be under the subtitle Andes? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Precordillera would do IMO. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well found, @Bedivere! If I read it correctly, the Chilean Cordillera Negra then lies in Futrono municipality, between Caunahue River to the north and Calcurrupe River and Curinilahue river to the south, between Llifén in the west and Huilo-Huilo Biological Reserve in the east. More to the west lies the Cerros de Quimán, another article created by the same permblockied user @Dentren. If this is right, I propose to redirect both Cordillera Negra (Chile) and Cerros de Quimán articles to the geography section of Los Ríos Region, where both Cordillera Negra and Cerros de Quimán should be mentioned in the paragraph on Precordillera. Or should it be under the subtitle Andes? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Withdraw The references provided by Bedivere and Fluorescent Jellyfish are enough to sustain a stand-alone article.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The nomination has been withdrawn but there are outstanding arguments to Delete this article and a proposal to Redirect it so it can't be closed at this moment until there is a consensus for a specific outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Refs. 1 and 2 are sufficient to indicate that this place exists and has that name. I can't check ref. 3 because I haven't got access to the book. Athel cb (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:SIGCOV per the sources presented in this discussion. The nominator has withdrawn. It's time to close this.4meter4 (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yun Yong-il (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)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – I just noticed his name is linked on 2014 and 2019 North Korean parliamentary election pages. However, I can't prove if this footballer being elected to them after retirement from sports. A 26-year-old person would be too young to be elected to any parliament office anyway... ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 12:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sonoran University of Health Sciences (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)
Non-notable education business. Most sources are discussion of naturopathy itself, don't mention the article topic, the other three are PRs or the institution's own website. No evidence of coverage in secondary sources. Jdcooper (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep or merge into a new article "Naturopathic schools in the US". I generally agree with Jdcooper's comments but question whether the conclusion is to delete. I tried to improve this article after discovering that it was substantially written by an employee. Despite database searches, I could find little independent and reliable coverage. Sonoran is formerly Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences. A recent investigation found that its "medical" graduates had the 4th highest debt to earnings ratios among graduate programs in the US. According to tax filings, Sonoran had $20 million of revenues in FY2023. This seems pretty significant, so I don't think a complete deletion is warranted. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Significant, independent coverage does not seem to exist. When the name of the university comes up it is only in brief mentions in articles discussing naturopathic issues at large (example). A merge can't take place if the target article doesn't exist yet; creating it would likely end up with the same issues this article has until other naturopathy schools are identified and added to it, and we would end up with an article that takes a bunch of non-notable information and collates it under a topic that might be notable. NUNM has similar issues, but is discussed more in depth by sources; revenues can be an indicator of notability but it is not coming up in the sources. Reconrabbit 16:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient independent reliable sources. The Banner talk 17:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on merging into a new article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. The sources cited fall far short of WP:GNG / WP:ORG, and a BEFORE finds nothing better. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 2019 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. ✗plicit 01:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ri Thong-il (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)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2019 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. - Lâm (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect According to User:Lâm TNM101 (chat) 12:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 20:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Martin Fong (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 have been unable to verify any of the information in this article other than some of the film credits. Searches via ProQuest, NewspaperArchive, Google Books, and plain-old Google have turned up no significant coverage of this person. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Hong Kong, California, and Nevada. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Subject lack references to meet notability per WP:GNG, they fail WP:SNG too Tesleemah (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Completely unsourced, created by suspected sock PPdd on May 23, 2011. Looks like a lot of this was written by Martin Fong himself. The entry on him at IMDb was written entirely by him. Quite possibly the entire article has been created by socks of Martin Fong. The many edits of User Lifesucksdie123 were exclusive to this page - no other article. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Unreferenced and fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians (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)
Non-notable, inactive group. Insufficiently sourced and due to the fact this group appears to be defunct, it's unlikely better sources will become available. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Israel, Palestine, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Most of the article is just quotations of the organisation's opinions and views. The coverage in the secondary sources does not appear significant either. Yue🌙 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Mostly promotional article . I can't find any good sources on this group. Whizkin (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.