Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 04	August 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village Green, Christchurch

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

No longer notable after the earthquakes. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Queen Elizabeth II Park as AtD.~~ Notability should not be lost once found, but I can't find enough WP:SIGCOV for the Village Green in the first place. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wanted to point out the same. Something or someone cannot lose their notability. Schwede 66 08:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Sammyrice:. A NZ cricket topic up for deletion. Are you able to find anything to expand this? AA (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't canvass people to vote. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Traumnovelle:. Where exactly am I canvassing someone to vote? I've tagged an editor with an interest in NZ cricket to see if they can expand the article. Are you mad? AA (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Pinging someone you expect to vote keep is canvassing. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Traumnovelle: So you are calling into question the integrity of two long-standing editors? Nowhere am I encouraging him to vote, nor expecting him to. It's his subject area. Or shall we not expand articles? I suggest you take back your bad faith accusation. AA (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop it. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – ground is widely covered by The Press with enough coverage elsewhere to meet WP:SIGCOV, the "No longer notable after the earthquakes" is an odd argument. --JP (Talk) 13:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpeeling I agree with you that the "no longer notable after the earthquakes" argument is wrong, provided there was notability to begin with, But to the extent the Press articles offer WP:SIGCOV of any facility, they seem to highlight Queen Elizabeth II Park, not the Village Green venue in particular. Do you have sources that show specific coverage of the Village Green versus the broader complex it was part of? Open to switching my !vote but I need to see some SIGCOV of the specific venue rather than the complex it was part of. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the sources the majority focus on the cricket venue rather than the wider park in general. They do mostly mention the QE2 but I think that's more to define where they are talking about given the generic name of the venue. JP (Talk) 07:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a major ground for 12 years, staging five domestic one-day finals. Sammyrice (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is appropriate to Queen Elizabeth II Park. I read the The Press sources and none are SIGCOV of Village Green but rather of the park or other buildings within the park. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per recent expansion. AA (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into the main QEII article.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 (duplicate of 2) are databases, 4, 6, 9 are passing mentions, 5, 14 don't even talk about the village green, but I think 8, 10, 13 are enough to push to WP:GNG (numbering per Special:PermaLink/1236485715) (struck first !vote). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, opinion is divided between Keep and Merge. Could the expansion of the article be evaluated to see if it changes any opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion hasn't changed. The sources are either trivial or give greater focus to QEII park or other buildings in the park. I don't see any evidence that the cricket ground has enough coverage for a stand alone article and QEII article isn't so big as to justify a content split. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Queen Elizabeth II Park. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This is a poor rationale for deletion. A venue being presently-demolished or mothballed does not erase the notability of its former use. Never has the closure of a sports venue been reason to delete an article. If it genuinely met notability standards while operating, it is hard to see how its closure would change that. SecretName101 (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once it's notable, it's always notable. It clearly passes GNG and temporary venues can have permanent notability, especially because this wasn't meant to be temporary. SportingFlyer T·C 15:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Borderline pass for standalone notability on the sources added to the article; previous vote struck above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese–Hungarian linguistic connection

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

The entire text has major WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE issues, and the topic doesn't seem to be notable on its own. There are (outdated, afaik) hypotheses such as Ural-Altaic in which Japanese and Hungarian would share a common ancestor along with Finnish and Turkish and lots of other languages, but the current text fails to establish notability for a Japanese-Hungarian connection in particular and I would be surprised if such an idea were notable even as a fringe theory. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Japan, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comparing Japonic with Uralic, or Proto-Japonic with Proto-Uralic, would be a legitimate subject. In fact, this subject is already covered in Classification of the Japonic languages § Uralic hypothesis. But comparing Modern Japanese and Modern Hungarian directly, based only on superficial resemblances, as this article does, is not just fringe science (like any hypothesis that claims a relationship between Uralic and Japonic, including macrofamily hypotheses such as Nostratic – these are not demonstrably wrong, principally methodically nonsensical or not even wrong, but poorly evidenced, generally not accepted and even widely rejected) but flat-out pseudoscience, see Pseudoscientific language comparison (and indeed not even wrong, methodically ignorant and unacceptable). Anyone can do this with random dictionaries, and it proves nothing. As an illustration, you might as well compare Modern French with Modern Moroccan Arabic and come to the conclusion that they are related because of superficial typological similarities and shared words, but this would be obviously absurd because we know about the history of these languages and their ancient ancestors, which are attested meaning that we can compare them directly, were nothing alike. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV of the topic in reliable sources. The article has been marred from the start and still is with OR/SYNTH and misused sources that don't support the statements that they are attached to and that don't cover the topic of the article. There are certainly notable macro-family proposals (mostly of a fringe nature) that include Japanese and Hungarian, but for singling out specifically these two languages in a separate article there simply is no SIGCOV. –Austronesier (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins, per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Strongly divided after two relists. I will note that the lack of consensus around notability should not prevent other issues in the article from being addressed, including the overuse of external links mentioned in the nomination. RL0919 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mysteries

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm rather surprised that this survived the earlier deletion discussion, which seems very shallow. Most of those calling for keeping it cited only the sheer number of sources all piled up in one place, with apparently nobody, including the nominator, actually looking at them. Well, I've looked at them all, or at least those that are still online, and they are all nearly exactly the same: some fan horror fan website or podcast writes like two paragraphs saying "these are kind of cool" and then reproduces several of the illustrations (although those have mostly been taken down now as well). I didn't find a single one that a person could honestly characterize as significant coverage from a reliable source.

The use of external links is also problematic, we don't usually include 140 external links in the body of an article, or any at all, actually. It would be more effort than this article is worth to even correct this problem as this appears to have been a flash-in-the-pan fad that the artist did to raise money for some other project, from what I can glean from the extremely scant actual coverage that goes beyond "hey look at this." Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Comics and animation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that it can be characterized as a "flash-in-the-pan fad" when it's been going on for 10 years continues to get coverage since the last time a source was added to the article, 1, 2, 3. What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable, personally I would say that what is here gets the subject over GNG. And "article is bad/weird/unusual" is not a valid reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable is easy enough, but I don't think you can actually show that any of this coverage has any depth at all, and also none of it is what would be considered a reliable source, which you haven't addressed with your reply. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are considered reliable by the horror project as far as I know.★Trekker (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing whatever specialized sourcing guideline you are referring to. "I think a WikiProject agrees with me" is not a valid argument as that is obviously not how we determine what is a reliable source. Geek Tyrant, for example, does not look at all like proffessional journalism. Neither does The Retroist, which spilled all of 131 words on the subject, hardly in-depth coverage. Paste (magazine) seems an ok source, but they wrote only five sentences, that again, boiled down to "hey look at this guys Tumblr" and nothing else. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am satisfied with the existing coverage. The page might do with some cleanup, true. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly confused how you could look at literally any of the sources and feel that they present the subject in any depth. There's nothing beyond "hey look at this" which is why the article is just the same. There's a good number of sources, but if you can't point to at least a few that have some depth then how can you be satisfied with it? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have already stated that 3 times or maybe more and Trekker has already kindly replied. Check the definition of significant on Wikipedia, if you wish. Various sources are independent and reliable and address the productions directly; the coverage can be considered significant either individually, or collectively, if your concern is the number of words or sentences of each of the sources. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the definition of significant on Wikipedia, if you wish. Yeah, I'm aware of it, the sentence you quote actually says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis added). This is my entire point, there is no detailed analysis in any of the sources. A whole bunch of brief mentions that say nothing of substance doesn't meet the bar. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never doubted you knew it. But that's what Trekker already told you, the threshold between in-depth and not in-depth can appear debatable. The dichotomy detail/vs/trivial mention, on the other hand, less so. And various sources are clearly not passing mentions but address the topic directly, yes. You might, personally, wish there were more details or might not like what the source says, or what you see, or the way the article says things, or maybe you find it of little interest, etc., but some sources can reasonably be called detailed and can definitely not be called trivial coverage. I don't like it either, at all, if you want to know the truth, but, from my understanding of the guideline, it may be considered notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
some sources can reasonably be called detailed and can definitely not be called trivial coverage. Again, easy to say without actually pointing out which ones you are talking about. Without actually saying which ones, you aren't actually making a point. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The first source is "Geek Tyrant" which does not seem like the most reliable of sources and is only five sentences, so not significant coverage. The second source is similarly "ComingSoon.net" which is only four sentences long. The third source is "ComingSoon.net" again, this time with five sentences. I don't see the significant coverage in reliable sources here that would suggest this might meet WP:GNG. I'd consider an article on the artist rather than this one of their art projects, but this seems far from WP:ARTIST standards like "significant new concept, theory, or technique," "substantial part of a significant exhibition," or "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Elspea756 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not replying on the significant/not significant issue, but I would not be opposed to redirecting it to Travis Falligant (see https://nerdist.com/article/scooby-doo-horror-icons-art-michael-myers-jason-voorhees-freddy-krueger/ https://in.ign.com/scooby-doo/62024/news/artist-imagines-scooby-doo-meeting-freddy-jason-and-more (both about the Scooby-Doo work and not quoted in the article, if I am not mistaken) https://bloody-disgusting.com/images/3605367/artist-travis-falligants-adorable-horror-babies-ready-animated-series/ https://www.altpress.com/an_artist_transformed_disney_princesses_into_popular_horror_movie_character/ that could help establish his new concept is the cute x horror crossover) but in the meantime, this is perhaps his best known and (I think) most extensive work and we can't redirect it to a non-existing page. Again, if other users think renaming and reshaping the page is better, I am not opposed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked these suggested sources, and am regretting that I spent any time doing so. I am switching my previous comment to "strong delete," as I am further convinced this is nowhere near WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Elspea756 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is puzzling to me as well. The last AFD ended in a keep result because there was no actual discussion of the quality of the sources. That's fair, when nominating something for deletion the quality of the sources is almost always a key element and the onus is on the nominator to make that point.

Unlike the previous nominator, I did take the time to look at them, and there's nothing there beyond "look at this" which obviously does not constitute significant coverage, whether the sources are reliable or not.

The suggested new sources are just more of the same. Fan sites need to keep grinding out content to attract readers, and that is all that this coverage is, a couple sentences, then a bunch of examples of the works. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nerdist is not a fan site, IGN is not a fan site, Altpress is not a fan site, Bloody Disgusting is not a fan site. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very frustrating, as the keep comments say they see depth in the coverage, yet have not actually said, at all, which of the many sources contains any depth. I took the time to actually look at the sources and I didn't see it. I've cited examples of how shalow the coverage is. They are saying they see depth of coverage but won't say where they see it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trekker. Specific genre have their own literature and accepted sources, and its best to realize that there are many things which the major media, for whatever reason, will not cover (tell me about it!). The editors who know the genre consider these as notable artworks of the subject, Scooby Doo, combined with aspects of a recognized storytelling model. Not that it counts here, but since the page gets a respectable 25 or so views a day, in those thousands of views a year some of the incorrect information will have been shook loose by fans of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) Aydo h8^[contribs] 11:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1xbet

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

Nomination to deletion initiated due to:

1) WP:NOTNEWS + WP:NOTBLOG: Wikipedia article is not list of press releases and company's announcements. Notorious 1xbet Wikipedia article written like a regular report by marketing specialist to his boss about Brand marketing activities. Not any single sentences applies to WP:Notability, except Controversies (See WP:NOCRIT, which means all article's reliable sources cannot refer only Criticism) and information regarding fraud activities.

2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam.

≈ In conclusion, delete/draftify and wait to further re-creation by experienced and recognized author on WP:AFC in completely encyclopedic style with many independent and reliable significant coverage references on each sentence. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 1xBet article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines through its detailed documentation of the company’s background and significant milestones, such as partnerships with FC Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain, this appears to be in a similar fashion to other gambling companies such as Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred just to name a few. These sections and the controversies sections are supported by reliable, independent sources, ensuring unbiased verifiability. The content is not a list of press releases but a factual account of the company's history, developments and controversies which are crucial to understanding their impact in the industry. Any promotional language can be adjusted to enhance the encyclopedic tone and neutrality of the article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1xbet does not look ready for mainspace, but it's notable enough to be draftified, it has to be handled through AfC. Also just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that 1xbet has to have a page in mainspace in such blatant promotion condition. TBH, Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred not doing cross-wiki spam (as 1xbet did), so they exist.

Secondly, notice WP:COI and try to improve the page in constructive way instead of defending blatand promotion. How about Draftify 1xbet and together work on the development from scratch (with other editors on WikiProject Companies) for 4-5 months before it will accomplish all Wikipedia guidelines and policies? So anxious to get an answer. Indiana's Football (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not saying that because other gambling company articles exist that this one should. It was a response to you calling into question how the article is written. My intent was to give other examples within the gambling niche that have the same structure, e.g. 'Lead', 'History', 'Sponsors', 'Controversies' sections, etc.

I agree with you that the 'Controversies' section is important. However, it needs to be a part of a balanced article, and suggesting that the article should only be focused on controversies is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. I want to call into question what your motive is and why it is so important to you that the article only focuses on controversies and nothing else? Do you have a vendetta against the company that influences this need for a negative bias?

I can see another user has left a comment on your talk page stating that you shouldn’t be jumping into areas that are unsuitable for new editors, as this defies Wikipedia guidelines. Unless you have been blocked before and this is a new account you have created? Your account is about 20 days old, but you have the knowledge of an experienced user – something doesn't add up, and you have all of the telltale signs of a sock puppet. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Article(s) cannot be based only on press-releases (WP:SIRS).

2. Article(s) cannot be based only on criticism (even if Criticism with reliable independent significant coverage sources (WP:CRIT)). 3.

3. So how about Draftify an article 1xbet and work on it together for a few months? For example, we can draft History paragraph instead of Ad in form of Expansion section? You still haven't answered, buddy. Indiana's Football (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no necessity to re-write the article as it is already comprehensive and well balanced. Instead of deleting and re-drafting the page, the best thing to do is to focus on improving the current article by updating references, consolidating repetitive information and making any changes that improve readability.

It is obvious you have a biased agenda as you deleted my most recent edit, which contained well-referenced information from a reliable source, whilst you made no attempt to remove any unreferenced information. This serves as proof that you have a vendetta against this company, and this is influencing and driving your agenda to re-draft the page with a focus on controversy. We can constructively edit the current article and have civil discussions on the talk page, but I don't agree to drafting a new article.

You have also ignored my previous point, so I will ask again, how do you have such a deep understanding on the knowledge and usage of advance Wikipedia strategy after editing for only a few weeks? I’m not convinced this is your first time here and I highly suspect you may have been banned before and I don’t think it would be a good idea if you drafted a new article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with you about the article being deleted for the reasons mentioned above, I do agree that some sources could be improved and I have updated them. I still stand by not deleting and instead improving it via constructive talk page discussions. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the 1xbet page history, User:Keith161 after puppet User:Timtime88 fallen down, created another one called Bringmethesunset and User:HanStark to continue promoting corporate brand by loading indefinite number of press releases. Blatant promotion, probably even WP:SALT can be applied. Can you feel puppet's pain across the screen so he hurry up to defend 1xbet here? Request to check page history, user contributions and CheckUserIP could be applied. Indiana's Football (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here. Both editors should refrain from casting aspersions on each other. WP:SPI is where you should inquire about potential sockpuppery, please keep accusations out of AFD discussions which should focus on the merits of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. We need more editors to participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just noticed that the page I edited the infobox of last year was nominated for deletion. Honestly it surprised me because it is one of the most well-written and well-balanced pages in the betting category here on Wikipedia. It excludes any advertisement - as I can see through the history log, the page was violated numerous times by ill-intended users who tried to put their agenda here by placing wrong links in the website link section or tried to put false and poorly referenced information. All these attemps were reverted again and again despite unhealthy attention from the "attackers" - page has been in semi-protection 2 or 3 times as I can see through the history.

Current state of the page has a lot of unreferenced information as well - as someone who did some editing on this article before, I can try and add some resources to the information I can find here (mainly the infobox, controversies and sponsorship section).

Another thing that surprised me was that the initial edit here removed some of the well-referenced (and new) parts of the sponsorship section. These things are easily found on the web and are covered thoroughly by different resources since it is concerns big football clubs and the leagues in Europe.

I believe that under the Wiki rules 1XBET article doesn’t alter from other betting-related pages (especially the ones about the brands and companies), yet still it was nominated for deletion.

In the coming days I will try to add references here and add up-to-date information, removing false or made-up parts of it. HanStark (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some resources to the page. Also I've tried to add some up-to-date information regarding betting deals, will try to find more information about the company that can be added in the general information section about the company's history.

Hope my input can help the wiki admins. HanStark (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Removed some parts that were mentioned by users below as a sponsored content from paid resources. Went through the article and also removed some of the parts that seems sketchy to me (e.g. sponsorship of not-so-relevant leagues that only have the generic press-release). As of August 12th, the article seems fine for me to stay and meets WP:GNG. HanStark (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: The article’s citations consist mostly of partnership announcements and sponsored articles, such as those from Outlook India and The Daily Guardian, these two sources are clearly sponsored. I haven’t found any reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. I tried searching on Google, but it’s full of promotional articles, blogs, coupons, and announcements. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I’m unsure what will happen to this AfD, especially since the nominator is blocked. If someone can share sources with in-depth coverage, they are welcome to do so. GrabUp - Talk 13:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the review of GrabUp the sources do not appear to be independent, and therefore alignment with the WP:GNG is not shown. C 679 04:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added new references which meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I've also removed a lot of cruft and sharpened the focus of the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can you share the three best sources that can help the article pass GNG/NCORP? GrabUp - Talk 13:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GrabUp, GNG/WP:NCORP looks for multiple sources, and while three sources is recommended, only two are required to satisfy the guidelines. Nevertheless, this from The Guardian provides sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" to meet GNG/NCORP, as does this from Sports Illistrated. There are also other articles which meet the criteria such as this from FTM (Follow The Money) and this in the Sunday Times as well as this report from the Sports Integrity Initiative. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the sources, and I am convinced that these sources pass the subject WP:GNG. Therefore, Keep. GrabUp - Talk 16:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course KEEP if you prefer to ignore 2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam. 185.12.142.253 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above. C 679 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course KEEP if you prefer to ignore 2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam. 185.12.142.253 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aydoh8, can you please explain why you decided to "relist" this AfD? WP:RELIST advises a relisting for a number of reasons, none of which are evident here, especially when it now appears that consensus to Keep has been reached. I note your activities at AfDs have previously been called into question. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close it as keep, but I didn't know whether it would be reverted by an admin again. I'll probably go ahead and close anyway. Aydo h8^[contribs] 11:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. A clear consensus now to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Future Party

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

Non-notable protest/vanity political party. Was formerly a redirect to its founder/leader, Dominic Cardy, a former New Brunswick New Democrat who was elected to the provincial legislature as a Conservative and later expelled from the Conservative caucus. In 2023 after the federal Conservative Party elected Pierre Poilievre its new leader, Cardy and a small number of disgruntled party members split off and formed their own party, at one time called "Centre Ice Conservatives", later "Centre Ice Canadians", and now ~~registered~~ eligible to register as the Canadian Future Party. This party got a blip of coverage when it was formed last September, including a hit piece used as a reference here which opines in its first paragraph, "this tiny group of disgruntled politicos has no political future in Canada". It has had not a single bit of coverage since, other than very brief passing mentions in routine coverage of federal politics. The article as it stands is a promotional coat rack leaning on the prestige of a few notable political figures who were associated with the party's predecessor groups before splitting from the CPC, but are not evidently currently involved with it at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Canada. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the party has just met Elections Canada eligibility requirements which means they have passed the notability threshold and as of July 22, 2024 are listed as an "eligible party" on the Elections Canada website [1]. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wellington Bay, WP:NORG is very clear that political parties are not awarded "inherent notability" simply for existing, and must meet WP:GNG (WP:ORGCRIT). Curbon7 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at List of political parties in Canada our practice has been that recognition by Elections Canada or a provincial equivalent establishes inherent notability. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no such thing as inherent notability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, given that they have managed to pass Elections Canada's criteria, vanity project or not, they will be as notable as any other minor party soon if they aren't already. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When they actually get someone elected, which likely won't happen, then we can have an article about them; "pie in the sky" hopes aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Having someone in office is not a requirement for notability. There are numerous articles on parties around the world that have never elected anyone. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite correct. People's Party of Canada also fits the line of having a Wikipedia page despite never gaining a seat and being an offshoot of a disgruntled former parliamentarian.
        
        And if we want to talk about vanity, there are the pamphlets of the Communist Party and Marxist-Lennist attacking each other. Both also have a Wiki and no seats.
        
        Here is a list of all official parties:
        
        https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e
        
        And because it is now an official party, it merits it's on article instead of a large subsection on the interim leader's page. Marveloushistorian (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        But getting elected will give them coverage, was my point. We have nothing about this person/party. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep: Political Science prof here (I focus partly on Canadian Politics). 1) CFP is an officially recognized federal party; 2) they were created by a number of high profile political actors (not really a vanity party in any meaningful sense - but even if they were this wouldn’t be a reason to delete the article since other vanity parties do have articles, such as the PPC); 3) there are already Wiki articles for significantly smaller parties (including Maverick Party); 4) they are at least noteworthy enough to have been granted a public platform by CPAC and all major news outlets ; 5) we should aim to err on the side of increasing the number of articles for legitimate/recognized parties rather than trying to gatekeep for political purposes (I.e., more access to more information and viable options for voters is beneficial for democracy); 6) because of Canada’s multi-party system, even smaller parties like CFP can play a big part in electoral politics and policy discussions; 7) this party is effectively an attempt to reincarnate the Progressive Conservative Party and revitalize the longstanding Red Tory tradition in Canadian federal politics, so lots of opportunities to link with other existing articles. 2607:F2C0:ECAA:600:3830:E0BB:2920:B8C8 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." Also per WP:ORGCRIT: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - this fails that test, and political parties are not exempt. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Quote; if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject

1. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/from-centre-ice-conservatives-to-canadian-future-a-new-federal-party-takes-shape-1.6570315

2. https://jacobin.com/2023/10/canada-new-future-party-centrism-dominic-cardy-politics

3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-federal-centrist-party-canada-1.6972891

4. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-taube-canadian-future-a-party-for-losers

5. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/09/20/news/upstart-federal-political-party-wants-provide-centrist-alternative

This is not including the coverage of 'Centre Ice Canadians' which the party emerged out of. Wilson (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: incorrect, they’ve been the subject of coverage by all major national news outlets and were granted a public platform by CPAC. So, this actually passes the test. 2607:F2C0:ECAA:600:3830:E0BB:2920:B8C8 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well, given that the party has announced it will be running candidates in the upcoming byelections and general election it is likely that it will be receiving more independent, verifiable coverage this year and next, so I ask that if the decision is to not keep the the article, that it be replaced with a redirect to Dominic Cardy so that future editors don't have to start from scratch once there are more sources. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same reasoning as yours. Black roses124 (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. FYI, a subject isn't judged to be notable by potential future coverage. What sources exist today?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are, as far as I can find 8-9 news articles that mention the party. The wiki page itself has 10 (2 internal, 8 news). Most minor parties have more sources but have also been around longer (except the Centrist Party which only has 4 sources). The Animal Protection Party of Canada has been around since 2005 but if you exclude links to Elections Canada results it has less sourcing than this wiki page. Looking at formerly active political parties gives a mixed bag with some parties having more references and some having fewer (including, oddly, the Progressive Conservative Party). Wilson (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gay 182.18.198.220 (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was a burst of coverage in Fall 2023 when the party first came along [2], but nothing since... Non-notable party that no one has talked about in almost a year now. The next election in Canada likely isn't until this time next year, so if there's been no coverage, I'm not sure what else will pop up. I've not heard of them in the year since these were published. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cardy was apparently arrested in Toronto on August 2nd; I've only learned this by visiting their facebook page. You'd expect the leader of a political party getting arrested to make some sort of news, but nothing was reported. This is very much a non-notable party at this point... Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true at all. There was a national post article about it. Here's the article. It also appeared on a Global News TV report. Saying that it got no coverage at all is not at all fair. 199.243.125.91 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that article has at most 6 sentences, which isn't enough for notability. There is still a lack of extensive coverage about this person or the political party. Getting arrested isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still honestly believe there is not enough media coverage? Black roses124 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you say yes just look at all the people saying keep and the links they’ve provided. Black roses124 (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, it is debatably on the same level of notability for Canada, as small vanity parties like the Forward Party and others are for the United States, there are much less notable US and European Political parties that have been given articles as well. This wouldn't be a conversation if it was an American vanity party that came up, why should it be for a Canadian party of the same level? And given that the party is likely to make a notable impact in upcoming by-elections or the next general it is something that has been notable recently and will get even more attention as time goes on as well. Unova Yellow (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dominic Cardy. I don't see enough coverage separate from him. If this is more than a vanity party, there probably will be coverage during the next election. But that isn't reason to have an article now. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/a-former-progressive-conservative-who-calls-pierre-poilievre-terrifying-is-launching-a-new-political-party/article_4d9956a0-5987-11ef-9f45-232cb62f5150.html

New coverage with more after the candidates are announced tomorrow. It seems the article is going to remain relisted just long enough to get new coverage and negate a primary objection to the article's notability. Wilson (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-future-party-launches-1.7294230

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/not-left-not-right-but-forward-dominic-cardy-officially-launches-new-centrist-federal-political-party-1.7000587

https://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/canadian-future-party-officially-launches--august-14-2024?id=49a3affb-83c9-4986-af3a-f6788fddbead Wilson (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly even more media coverage and there is going to be even more coverage once we get closer to the election. Black roses124 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will be contesting elections and getting a reasonable amount of media coverage. Seems silly to delete when more coverage is pretty clearly coming in a matter of days as well. 100.0.177.22 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Party announced its formal launch 14 August 2024 at the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery in an event broadcast live on the Canadian Parliamentary Channel^[1]. The launch was covered by the CBC^[2], CTV^[3], and Canadian Press^[4]. The announcement accompanies the nomination of candidates to run in byelections in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun in Montréal and Elmwood—Transcona in Winnipeg. Since the announcement, the Party has been the subject of active discussion in multiple Reddit forums^[5]^[6]. Evanleibovitch (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They officially launched the party today (in EST time at least) and now that it's official, it deserves some merit. User:Iwuedfh — Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Further evidence of notability (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadian-future-party-centrist-option/) leads me to believe that it warrants its own page. Cyali (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Party launched on August 14th 2024. They had a presser of CPAC, have a candidate, Mark Khoury, for the LaSalle--Émard--Verdun By-election and are in the process of nominating one for Elmwood–Transcona . Lastly, the interim leader had an interview on CBC on the evening of August 14, 2024.

https://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/canadian-future-party-officially-launches--august-14-2024?id=49a3affb-83c9-4986-af3a-f6788fddbead

https://www.elections.ca/Scripts/vis/candidates?L=e&ED=24037&EV=59&EV_TYPE=3&PROV=QC&PROVID=24&QID=-1&PAGEID=17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2KGl84XXNQ&t=44s Marveloushistorian (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has also been discussed at some length as Centre Ice Canadians; see the Globe article referenced above. 13:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Discussed at length by multiple national media, on multiple occasions, over the space of a year, registered with elections Canada, running candidates in by-elections, founder is himself notable. 120000 results on google for the exact search phrase (by comparison, I clicked random article twice and got a number theory article with 1200 google results, similarly, the maverick party also has a wiki page and I only got ~8000 results, and much less media coverage).69.173.141.86 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they are contesting elections and other registered parties have articles.

JSwift49 21:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If there can be articles for the Marijuana Party, Marxist-Leninists, Centrists, Animal Protection, Veterans Coalition, and Free Party among many others, which all have similarities to this one as being relatively obscure and having no actual representation, there is no reason this article shouldn't exist. They are recognized by Elections Canada and are contesting 2 important byelections that will occur next month. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cremastra (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they are an official party now and per what other Keep discussions have mentioned. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 12:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the excessive national media coverage I've seen for this part in the last few days (CBC, Globe and Mail, CTV, etc.), as well as the biggest local paper in the country (Star), I'm surprised this is still open. I didn't disagree with the nomination when I saw it last month, but I think events have overtaken the discussion. Perhaps User:Ivanvector can now withdraw this nomination

Keep as others have pointed out, considering all the recent coverage it seems obvious at this point. Kryptec (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge‎ to Browser game. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.io games

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

Besides the Rock Paper Shotgun article, this fails WP:GNG. The redirect should be restored, as before, since there are not enough reliable sources to make a genre article and the rest of it is clearly WP:SYNTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Browser game. Agree on lack of notability but it is a valid classification of a game platform.
— Masem (t) 23:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Masem, Browser game seems like a very reasonable merge. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Masem. Not notable for an article, but is notable enough to merge to Browser game Felicia (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this redirected to .io#Usage prior to an article being created, but I suppose Browser game is a better target. For what it's worth the article creator currently has this article nominated for speedy deletion. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Atilla (Turkish Invasion of Cyprus)

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

This article should be deleted, as it seems to overlap with Turkish invasion of Cyprus. LR.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Cyprus, and Turkey. LR.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:REDUNDANTFORK Aintabli (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Changing my vote to keep as I overlooked the recent move and the overall context of the article. Aintabli (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SPINOFF The article Turkish invasion of Cyprus only provides an overview of the military activities in three short paragraphs, however this article vastly expands on that information. Any overlap is just enough to provide context to this extra detail Farrier-as (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legitimate SPINOFF. Not sure how this could have been nominated or supported. The PRODding without as much as an edit summary was a disgrace. If there is no case whatsoever for deletion, an article should NEVER be considered for PROD! Yet another user moved the article without any debate. Maybe we should limit editing access to this article. gidonb (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: per WP:SPINOFF and other keep votes above. The sub-topic is notable enough and there is enough sourced information for it’s own article. Lordseriouspig 22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least change the name to "Combat operations during the invasion of Cyprus" as operation atilla was the name of the Turkish military operation
Keep and Move back to its original title Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The article is a legitimate spinoff for military operations during the invasion. Confusion seems to be caused by the fact that earlier this year it was unilaterally and without discussion moved to its current somewhat misleading title.--Staberinde (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that too ShovelandSpade (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert name to original title. Constantine ✍ 10:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. Please remember to sign your comments. And don't worry about the article page title, that can be discussed if the article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 22:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Hospital

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

Still not notable. The last AfD (when the article was named Abdali Medical Center) was 5 years ago and the decision was to keep the article although it is notable that there was a number of editors saying it met GNG but didn't/wouldn't consider whether the sourcing met NCORP criteria. Nothing has changed in the meantime for me. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references have content that meets these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Health and fitness, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previously at AFD twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)} so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As stated, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCORP as lacking direct detailing from multiple and diverse reliable sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Editors can discuss a possible article page move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MC Daleste

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

WP:NMUSICBIO. Discography consists of one (non-charting) album, with no awards or notable label work over a short career. Sources in both English and Portuguese focus exclusively on his death with no coverage of his music, which is reflected in the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage outside his death. Some of these sources can be found in the respective article in Portuguese at pt:MC Daleste, which has significant "Biography" and "Career" sections. Skyshiftertalk 21:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable both when active as an artist and for his murder. Svartner (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but consider move. It is a very close call for me. I don't think the subject reaches WP:NARTIST but there is notable coverage of the murder, and thanks to Skyshifter for pointing out many more sources on the Portuguese page. Although not all of those sources reach the bar, I think enough do to show that the event of the murder is notable. So then the question is whether this meets the criteria for inclusion, or whether it is excluded under WP:BLP1E. On that score, I think the third criterion is key. The murder of the subject is a significant event, as demonstrated by the sourcing, and clearly they were a key part of that. Thus not excluded. Although a keep, I would suggest that there may well be a case to move and expand this article. I note that this article will always be short, but it does mention the murder of other MCs, i.e, MC Careca, MC Primo, and MC Duda Marapé. None of these have a page, and the reader would not be well served by four individual pages. The primary subject appears to be the violence within this music scene, and moving this page to a title that covers that would allow the inclusion of all four of these, with short bios for each, into a single page that explains what is going on and why. That would, in my view, be the encyclopaedic artice. Move is not an AfD outcome. If this is kept, an RM can be opened. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 23:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ogan

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

CEO of a small hedge fund, not large enough to lend notability to either; not long out of university, with few publications. The references are about related topics but not about Ogan, who is mentioned tangetially if at all. Searches find routine listing and social media (with insufficient followers to use that to justify notability). Klbrain (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, China, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The majority of the articles are about Tesla or a Chinese car company; Ogan is asked about what he thinks about xyz thing... None of these are about Ogan. There is no coverage about this individual and this shows a lack of notability. I don't find any articles we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The best source I could find was this March 2024 article in the Shenzhen Daily which has some biographical coverage like this:
Watching drone shows, using drone delivery services, taking robotaxis, turning to AI tools to increase efficiency ... such novel happenings over the past few years in Shenzhen is now Taylor Ogan's daily reality. The Snow Bull Capital CEO relocated to Shenzhen, from Boston, in January 2023. ... Shenzhen holds a special place for Ogan since he grew up listening to his parents and grandparents talk about the Chinese city they visited in the early 1990s. The 28-year-old has been to China many times. He first visited Shenzhen in 2015 and returned in 2019.
However, rather than covering his biographical background, most of the article cites his opinion about the electric vehicle industry or Shenzhen. The other sources I found largely were passing mentions or interview content. The subject is close to passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria but does not meet the notability guidelines yet. If reliable sources continue covering him and eventually provide significant biographical background (rather than just interview content), I would support the recreation of the article. Cunard (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and subsequent comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 23:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Dead Yet (nonprofit)

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

The article outlines no particular notablity of the group. While sources establish its existence, no notable work or membership is described. One of the articles actually describes it as a "Tiny Disability-rights Group". There is simply nothing of particular note here. SecretName101 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a few more sources on Google, including on the Library of Congress Website [3] and some academic papers, but the name makes it quite hard to search for as a lot of stuff comes up just using the express in the context of assisted suicide. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 01:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Notcharizard Library of Congress page is only archived copies of the org's website as part of the LOC's web archive project. Not necessarily something that establishes note for the org SecretName101 (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG - I don't see any source which gives a biography of the group, the sources I see only briefly mention its existence.

---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective PAC

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

Pretty much all in-depth coverage I could find on Collective PAC were either about its founders (Stefanie and Quentin James) or articles where its founders were quoted, with a short snippet mentioning that they founded a PAC. You could make a decent case that Stefanie and Quentin James are notable, but the same can't really be said for Collective PAC. An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. Most coverage I could find of this PAC is like that: an article about PACs more broadly that simply mentions Collective PAC in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom's assessment. I have been unable to find significant coverage of this PAC. Most of the coverage I could find are quotes from the PAC's founders or brief mentions of the PAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 00:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle James Hauser

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about a musician, and added an interview to the External Links section. I cannot find other independent, reliable, significant coverage to add - there is a footnote about his teaching in a book about music education, but I don't think it's significant enough to add. I don't think the existing references demonstrate that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. There are few secondary sources listed; the best may be the concert announcement in Connect Savannah. Redirect to Rapidgrass is a possibility, but he was performing before joining them, and is only mentioned in the article about them as a past member. Tacyarg (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Virginia. Tacyarg (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 , noting no opposition to the sources used in the article's significant expansion. czar 20:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Margarete of Thurn and Taxis

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

No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and each other. The only notable source currently is a notice of her wedding in the New York Times, so her article can be redirected to her husband's which already covers that event. All the other mentions are trivial or directory entries. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Belgium. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alessandro, 1st Duke of Castel Duino (although I doubt the Duke's notability as well). I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Duke is barely notable so why redirect it to him? He is probably less notable than Margarete because all that's really stated on his page is his marriages and issue. Azarctic (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep she is notable for her wedding (WP:1E) where she obviously played a significant part in. the event was notable because most ruling princely families in Europe were represented at the wedding. And some sources are secondary but reliable (WP:BASIC). Azarctic (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1E says we likely shouldn't create an article for a person who is only notable for one event. It doesn't establish a person's notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that but that isn’t the only thing she’s notable for and WP:1E is if the person plays a significant role in an event and if the individual is notable then it should be put into their article. Also that’s just one of the reasons why we should keep the article because it goes into depth about the event as well as her biography which has reliable citations. Azarctic (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think the wedding is notable in itself (if it was there would be more than just a notice in the NYT) but what is this other thing they are notable for that you are alluding to but not actually stating? I can't seem to see it in the article. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it isn’t notable which it is, why should her page be deleted it still has enough coverage, her husband and father are probably less notable as her husband has only one reference so if anything he should be redirected/deleted, not Margarete’s page which should not be redirected or deleted. Azarctic (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article only contains information about relationships to family members and her wedding, nothing to indicate independent notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what most articles on Wikipedia are like though. Especially royalty ones because marriage is a big event in royalty. And not once has the article mentioned anything about relationships to family members except for her birth and marriage which is usual for a Wikipedia biography. Azarctic (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered an argument to avoid. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No less notable than her husband or father, both of whom have extensive articles. Plenty of RS coverage to substantiate notability. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The keep arguments are variants of 'she was present at one notable event' or 'we have articles on other non-notable people that she's related to'. These are arguments for deletion not retention. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven’t even made a proper reason to delete the article. Azarctic (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, being present at one notable event does not make that attendee notable, nor does having non-notable relatives. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying your vote to deleting it is because she was not notable at one notable event… I don’t think that’s a proper reason still… Azarctic (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I would have advocated for a redirect to the articles on his father or husband but they don't appear to be more notable than her. In any case, I don't think the article should be entirely deleted because there is some coverage in outside sources. Keivan.f^Talk 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep the page as she was not known only after her marriage to Prince Gaetano of Bourbon-Parma. I have some information about her that is present in some books on the house of Bourbon-Parma (the one by Juan Balanso in French and another in Italian). If I have time I will try to add information. I thank the creator of the page. I was just thinking of creating the page on Princess Margarete myself.
MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. IMO, she is enough to be notable per GNG. 81.231.253.231 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC) — 81.231.253.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep satisfied with MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma's work and i can see she was public figure in her time. I also found this [[4]]. Thanks 223.204.71.128 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources of her times proves that she was a public figure, no less than Paris Hilton or Pippa Middleton today. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets basic notibility requirements with substantial coverage in reliable sources.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Hellier

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Generally, just being a mayor doesn’t inherently makes Hellier notable, and no evidence of passing WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Minnesota. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that we do not delete. I have updated the article with multiple references to sources showing he has been covered multiple times in various publications. Ajthom90 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just for existing, and do not automatically pass WP:GNG just because a smattering of local coverage exists — local coverage always exists of all local mayors, so the existence of the routine local coverage that's merely expected to exist is not in and of itself enough. So the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not to minimally verify that he exists, it's to write and source substantive content about his political impact: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this article contains absolutely no content of that type whatsoever, and is sticking to the "verify that he exists, the end" template for bad articles about mayors.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something much more substantive than this, but just being able to verify his election and a bit of trivia about his educational and career backgrounds is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been expanded since its nomination, can we get an assessment of any changes and new sources added?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there's enough here for WP:GNG. Lean delete.-KH-1 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two claims here. Political operative and elected official. He does not meet GNG for his political operative career like a Charlie Kirk or a James O'Keefe. His political position does not meet WP:NPOL and while mayors can be notable, he took office less than two years ago so it's WP:TOOSOON.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet, with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoora

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

The person is Not notable to be added in the Wikipedia. The article is entirely promotional. The references are just some 'fashion style' non reliable non notable sources.

Golaecan (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not clean up, just tag the article with promo tag. There is a lot of sources talking about him on Google News. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I remove the fancruft and looked at the sources presented in the article and elsewhere. Being a former bandmember of AA (band) and being on Bigg Boss has attracted quite bit of press, making Blp1e inapplicable. Discard some of the unreliable sources, PR, and focusing on features such as https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/k-pop-singer-aoora-ventures-into-the-tamil-music-industry/articleshow/107967147.cms and https://www.dailyo.in/social/who-is-k-pop-singer-aoora-and-why-was-he-singing-woh-kisna-hai-in-mathura-41781 reveal Aoora’s notability. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, original poster was blocked for sockpuppeting anyway. seefooddiet (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment - what is the meaning of some 'fashion style' ? 223.204.71.128 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Houghton

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

This child received some news coverage years ago in the context of a single event. The subject is notable for only one event and according to our policies on BLP likely doesn't merit an article.

His invention was included in a museum exhibition a couple of years after the initial news coverage, but I still don't think this is enough. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and United Kingdom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are all about a 5 yr old that got a patent, which I suppose could be notable; no coverage past 2010 of his patent. I'm not even sure what he's done since then. Having a patent isn't notable; I don't see lasting coverage and this seems to fall into 1E territory. His broom idea doesn't seem to have gone anywhere as you can't seem to buy one... Kid invents something at a young age that then never gets built. His idea is likely past the point of patent coverage now, which I think is around 15 yrs, so his idea is public domain at this point. No further developments have happened, so I don't think he's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E, no documented evidence of notability since the patent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 23:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of the Representatives of Bunyoro-Kitara

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

Pure puffery for an organization that seems to largely only exist to grant honours to itself and others. Pure fantasy, and non-notable to boot.

I had prev. PROD-ed the following web of connected articles, but I'm also bundling them in this AfD because I nominated so many of them. They are all non-notable and pure advert for this fantasist "kingdom". They are:

Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to bundle the AfDs, you can replace the PRoD tags with {{subst:afd1|Association of the Representatives of Bunyoro-Kitara}} which will direct towards this discussion. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Just did that now. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A traditional kingdom does much more than "grant honours to itself and others." Bunyoro and other traditional kingdoms such as Buganda continue to be an important part of Uganda's society and identity. The article on Bunyoro begins: Bunyoro, also called Bunyoro-Kitara, is a traditional Bantu kingdom in Western Uganda. It was one of the most powerful kingdoms in Central and East Africa from the 13th century to the 19th century. It is ruled by the King (Omukama) of Bunyoro-Kitara. The current ruler is Solomon Iguru I, the 27th Omukama. "Pure fantasy" is a really poor characterization of Bunyoro. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not nominated Bunyoro for deletion. The recently-created internet honours mill is what I've nominated, which isn't a commentary on the history of Uganda or the history of the kingdom. I agree that Bunyoro exists; it's full of rich history. Conversely, these articles are not. Did you look at the sourcing on the articles above and looked to see if they meet SIGCOV, or follow the steps to check for sourcing when participating in an AfD? These articles are not notable. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Royalty and nobility, and Uganda. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pending any third party sources at all, I don't see how this could meet WP:NORG. -- D'n'B-t -- 15:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The orders are certainly notable. Not so sure about the others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay was much better at describing a thorough review of the sourcing below in a well thought out response. @Necrothesp, can you review the below, take a look at the sourcing, and weigh in? The AfD is not for the kingdom, or its history, but these newly created orders, for which I can find no sourcing. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion stands. I tend to think any honour established by a state, even if only a traditional one with no international standing, should be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that "honors" is not an SNG, do you have a P&G-based reason to keep these particular pages? I don't see how it's a benefit to the encyclopedia to have articles on commercial topics that can't be sourced to anything IRS. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Internet honours mill" is an apt way of putting it. No evidence that any of them or their associated orgs are notable; rather, this seems to be the wealthy inheritors of a defunct kingdom clinging to vestiges of aristocracy. I can't find any scholarly articles on "Order of (the) Engabu" or "Omujwaara Kondo/Abajwarakondo" -- zero legitimate hits through GS and wiki library, and nothing for the former even in the 282-page Anatomy of an African Kingdom: A History of Bunyoro-Kitara; surely the second-most prestigious order, allegedly established in 1700, would be discussed here? Like, in the chapter "The Regalia of Kitara", which details the Ekondo: ~50 specific kondos (crowns) that had been given to specific individuals (Abajwarakondo). In that regard, it does seem that Abajwarakondo is acknowledged as an order of distinction in the 1955 Agreement, but the "Order of Omujwaara Kondo" is a completely new "honor" invented in 2010 that bears little resemblance to the practice of bestowing unique, hand-made crowns to select subjects of the Omukama. 0% of the article describes the ancient rite, which included some interesting dietary restrictions (no beans, potatoes, or other vegetables!) recipients must adhere to on threat of beheading; it is entirely on the new order, and sourced to SPS and websites administered by Bunyoro-Kitara.org. I do think an article on Abajwarakondo could be warranted, but it would have to be written from scratch as nothing here is worth merging.
I'll also note that the Engabu honor is sourced to the "royal decree" issued by the defunct kingdom in 2010 and hosted on SkibDen.dk (an SPS on Danish medals that happens to share its name with the articles' creator). JoelleJay (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's incorporated under the Companies Act, so should be looked at as such; sourcing I see is primary or social media. Not sure this "thing" warrants an article, with the minimal sourcing used now in the article, I don't see notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of them have enough independent coverage to keep, and none of the keep votes have provided sources about the awards. Some of this could possibly be discussed at Omukama of Bunyoro, other pages are pure "honours mill" and should not be mentioned anywhere on-wiki. But, per JoelleJay, I am not convinced anything could be merged. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Association of the Representatives of Bunyoro-Kitara at the least, per JoelleJay's reasoning and explanation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge‎ to Beverley#Culture and amenities. czar 20:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley town fair

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

This article appears to be about a livestock market that has changed date and location a few times. I was able to find a reference to medieval Saturday markets, but that 1. doesn't support the implied claim of continuity 2. still wouldn't be a claim of notability since most medium sized towns have markets of one form or another.

Looking at a current list of What's on in Beverley, there's nothing with this exact name. It's clearly the case that there are and were several markets, fairs, festivals and other community events in Beverley - searching online brings up results for the Festival of Christmas, Beverley Puppet Fest before any mention of a livestock fair - none individually notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

I would redirect to Beverley#Culture and amenities. As the article is currently entirely unsourced, I don't believe there's anything that needs merging or preserving. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United Kingdom, and England. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Beverley#Culture and amenities. A brief sentence of its existence could be supported with this source, I don't think it needs more than that but as it seems to have been a central trading point before the development of Hull it could be at least worth a mention. Suonii180 (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Beverley, if something really has to be done - this source gives 7 pages on the markets and fairs of Beverley, which is a well-known historic town - I don't think much BEFORE was done here. Ingratis (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 07:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of titleholders under ALV Pageant Circle

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

There's no indication that these two pageants together constitute an encyclopedic topic and the article is WP:SYNTH. We already have articles on each pageant, namely Miss Grand Philippines and Miss World Philippines, plus as a quasi notable grouping, Philippines at the Big Four beauty pageants which is quite sufficient for the topic. N.b. ALV Pageant Circle is a redlink, this has the appearance of trying to bootstrap it to notability and/or provide WP:PROMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's needless repetition of information provided elsewhere. Sciencefish (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Fullerton School District. ✗plicit 00:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parks Junior High School

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable middle school. Being one of ~300 schools per year to have won a National Blue Ribbon Schools Program is not a claim of notability. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Fullerton School District. I agree with the nominator that simply having a Blue Ribbon School is not sufficient to bestow notability on a middle school, but redirects are cheap and a good ATD. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fullerton School District, which will allow the content and history to be retained. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 23:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waco, Indiana

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

The only structure at this crossroads is the Waco Church of Christ, which seems to have been the case for a very long time. Baker describes it as a post office, and I could find nothing on the place: the one thing that looked like a hit turns out to be in a different town. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good number of hits on Newspapers.com for "Waco Daviess", including a 1999 obit that describes Waco as a small community [5]. Also many articles were published about Perry Baldwin, a country dentist who lived there [6]. One such article states "Just by tolerance the map makers have left Waco on the map. The average motorist wouldn't know when he passed thru. If you could put one point of a pair of dividers on Waco you could swing the instrument in a 20-mile radius before touching an honest-to-gosh town." and goes on to say the only reason people visit is for a log cabin dental office. [7] -- Cerebral726 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a one-room schoolhouse and is a cemetery. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honey_G (rapper)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality TV contestant. She has had no career beyond being a novelty act on one series on The X Factor, with no success in the industry outside of that. SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't a measure of talent; it's a measure of significant coverage in reliable sources. Subject is still getting coverage years after X-Factor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The link is to a disambiguation page. It should be Honey G (rapper). Athel cb (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep as to both the individual, for whom flash-in-the-pan coverage is coverage still, and the disambiguation page necessitated by their ambiguity with another equally obscure topic. BD2412 T 16:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:BASIC pretty easily. C F A 💬 20:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RP-S512

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

I'm sure the creators are proud, but it's a pretty standard example of this kit plane, with a notable exception being (possibly) the first produced in its country.

In other words, there's no encyclopedic value, it does not pass WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Philippines. tedder (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is no WP:SIGCOV about this specific kit plane, so fails Wp:GNG. May or may not also be eligible for a speedy G5 per WP:BRV as creator is blocked as a sock. Didn't !vote that because I'm not sure we can say they're the only significant contributor. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG per Alien333's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge back to Keerthy Suresh‎. (non-admin closure) KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Keerthy Suresh

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

This article sets a bad precendent. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Priyamani. Fails CFORK, NLIST this information could very easily be accommodated in the main article, there is no need for a stand alone list, has not been discussed as a group by independent non-promotional reliable sources. No need to delete this article, only merge it back to Keerthy Suresh. Charliehdb (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Awards, and Lists. Charliehdb (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keerthy Suresh#Accolades Not enough yet for a spinoff article, but the nom is advised that we do consider these splits if there's enough content where it's longer than the main article body. I assume good faith here about the split, just that it was merely done too soon. Also please use your own words in a deletion nomination in the future, as the ' discussed as a group by independent non-promotional reliable sources' mention makes no sense here at all, as it's about known awards, not the discussion of them. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keerthy Suresh: Too early and undersourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Keerthy Suresh#Accolades but only the ones with sources. Merge only the awards and Nominees list and remove rest of the description that is WP:CFORK. Source on the page is good for National filmfare awards only and quick search I was able to find source to confirm that the subject won filmfare award for Dasara and for Mahanti, and SIIMA award but with merge it will be helpful to add source for each award and nomination. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Keerthy Suresh#Accolades as mentioned – the list is easily covered in the existing article, so a split is unnecessary (WP:SIZE, WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Keerthy Suresh#Accolades: There's not enough for a standalone article at the moment and this is an unnecessary split. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Björnström

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

sportsperson stub. fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Finnish newspaper archives have you searched for coverage of this offline-era Olympic medalist? BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BeanieFan. There should be coverage in local Finnish papers for this Olympic medalist, especially in 1912 and 1935. - Enos733 (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At worst, redirect to Finland at the 1912 Summer Olympics. Alvaldi (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several newspaper articles about his death in 1935 in the National Library of Finland archives. Seems like his death was widely covered in the Finnish media [8][9][10] Alvaldi (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many of the criteria at WP:NSPORT include medalling at the Olympics, so even though there's not a specific guideline for sailing, I would argue that medaling at the Olympics. meets NSPORT. Further, as others have said, there's likely coverage out there in Finnish newspapers. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're asking, we do have WP:NOLY, which says that medalists are likely to have coverage, except for events with less than four participants, and this event had four teams. The thought process behind nominating it for deletion is therefore understandable, but no apparent WP:BEFORE was conducted. Now that others have done the due diligence, it seems like the person was probably more notable for other things than the Olympic participation. Geschichte (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The newspapers mentioned above have coverage of this person; the second one has his photo and a two column write up, the rest are helpful. Should have enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough coverage in Finnish language sources to warrant notability Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Any user is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 14:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Kamwi

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

Article doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACTOR. At most impact, for directing a quite significantly covered play, I won't have at prejudice with redirecting to List of Namibian writers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, ~~Lists of people~~, and Africa. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bimal Dey

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, ~~Lists of people~~, Asia, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one review is a start at demonstrating criterion #3 of WP:NAUTHOR, but the bookseller page and his book do nothing to help. Searches in English and Bengali returned one article in a regional French newspaper about him presenting an artwork to the mayor of Saint-Paul-en-Chablais, but nothing about it suggests a significant depth of coverage.[11] I don't see a fundamental improvement since the first time this was deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010, OccultZone, and Thomas.W: Pinging as concerned editors all unblocked participants in the first discussion. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 15:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palawan National School

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

Marked as needing sources since 2021. Almost completely unsourced, and the one source provided is WP:PRIMARY to document the mission of the school. Summarizes the routine activities of the school. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Philippines. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - see dozens of Google News results. It’s also over 10,000 students. Bearian (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it has a million students, if the coverage is insufficient. Most of the sources seem to describe the routine activities of the school. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Google news gives routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searched for sources with significant coverage but found only passing mentions and routine coverage, which can’t meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Additionally, stating that the school has 10,000 students doesn’t inherently make it notable. Notability isn’t determined by the number of students of a school or followers of a person but is established through significant coverage from reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 14:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge‎ to Kenya Gazette. Malinaccier (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetted officer (Kenya)

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

A gazetted officer simply means a government employee whose appointment gets notified in the Gazette. I don't think it warrants a standalone article, WP:PAGEDECIDE. Article is also uncited and not received WP:SIGCOV with only single reference, which is barely reliable (fails WP:RS). Hence, looks like article is made out of original research. TheProEditor11 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kenya. TheProEditor11 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kenya Gazette. the content is unsourced but sources exist that show the term is in use [12] [13]. But this article would be merely a definition; discussing it at Kenya Gazette is sufficient. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kenya Gazette: as a brief paragraph. Does not warrant its own page. Owen× ☎ 16:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Speedily kept. "If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."‎. (non-admin closure) (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven van de Velde

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

Fails WP:PERP as he is a run of the mill criminal who just happened to have his non notable crime dragged up by the media because he was selected for the Olympics. Fails WP:GNG because none of the sources are more than "bad man is Olympian now". Also they are routine match coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The subject of the article clearly meets GNG. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So to you, rape is a “non-notable crime.” (Personal attack removed) Court records are actually a pretty reliable source, don’t you think? Magic on the Mic (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — Magic on the Mic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yeah, it's a topic of significant public interest as there is serious debate about the character of people representing their countries at an international event and this is a notable example of such, so speedy deletion feels unwise (and maybe a little suspicious) os (talk) os (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I pay to use this platform and keep it running. If you start censoring content, that is in the public domain, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I'll stop. Rincethis (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — Rincethis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How exactly do you pay, this is a free website. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a non-notable crime, it happens all too often, we aren't a directory of every person that ever did a crime. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is for posting known facts about notable people/places/things. He is a person known around the world. His crime is a fact. That's the end of the debate. If he didn't want rape tied to his legacy, maybe he shouldn't have raped anyone. Omitting facts just because you don't like them goes against everything Wikipedia was made for. 2603:6080:8B00:2DEC:7A9F:A641:418E:D164 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — 2603:6080:8B00:2DEC:7A9F:A641:418E:D164 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Magic on the Mic: This comment is extremely inappropriate. This discussion is about the article, there is absolutely no reason to imply that the nominator is a rapist. That's absolutely disgusting behavior and not at all acceptable on Wikipedia. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable crime? He raped a 12 year old. Sort yourself out. Rincethis (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" is a term of art here in Wikipedia and refers to whether we should have an article on the subject. The nominator calls it a non-notable crime because we don't have an article on most rapists. Charcoal feather (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia IS a source of information on notable figures. He is notable because he's an Olympian. His crime is also therefore notable. Celebrities don't get to disappear from the public eye when they commit heinous crimes. Wikipedia even has a history of listing out unfounded accusations and then referencing they were unfounded, but suddenly listing actual convictions is up for debate based on whether other people who commited the same crime have their own wiki? Seems suspiciously like people just want this swept under the rug. This needs to stay up. 2603:6080:8B00:2DEC:7A9F:A641:418E:D164 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seriously? why would u want to delete an article that is true?

seems pretty weird…

do u not think pedophilia is a problem? do u think telling the truth it’s important!?

sorry dude. definitely KEEP 2603:8080:E900:5C8E:819F:72A3:2DF6:2242 (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — 2603:8080:E900:5C8E:819F:72A3:2DF6:2242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, per Sirfurboy and Charcoal feather, clearly notable Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG as an Olympic athlete. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, close discussion as per above argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.189.180 (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — 124.179.189.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep , wait , these are some serious charges and shouldn’t be removed . Kartikeyachoudhary (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — Kartikeyachoudhary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep meets GNG. WP:CRIME or WP:BLP1E do not apply because he is notable for attending the Olympics. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. C F A 💬 14:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He will be presumed notable if he wins a medal in the Olympics. Not just for attending. See WP:NATHLETE. On the face of it though, I'd be surprised if he isn't notable under GNG. Some secondary sources would be good at this point, mind. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a ton of secondary sources in the actual article with significant coverage. I seriously don't understand the argument that they don't meet GNG because they do. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. de Velde is a run of the mill criminal and a run of the mill Olympic athlete, but that combination is unusual and makes him notable (as the sources demonstrate). Charcoal feather (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Bad man is olympian" with extensive, worldwide coverage about his story; this is enough for notability. He's one of the many stories to come out of the Paris Olympics, including the boxer that didn't want to fight the other one over gender issues... He's likely not notable as an athlete, but the story surrounding his trip to the Olympics is. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which does not apply to notability. WP:GNG, applies per extensive coverage by media and a notable sports career.BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Crime, Olympics, Volleyball, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a piece of shit, yes, but also meets notability. On a side note, the insane amount of SPAs commenting on this discussion is an issue. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 12:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Fridleifur Gunnarsson

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

Found while gleaning through No Significant Coverage pages. This footballer, whose name is really written Karl Friðleifur Gunnarsson, has won a semi-professional league, but would have failed the old football guidelines. But does he meet GNG? I don't think so, after finding WP:ROUTINE and/or short transfer or contact announcements [14] [15], match descriptions [16] [17] [18] (somewhat significant) or interview-heavy articles. [19] [20] I can read and understand the gist of Icelandic. Do you think this is WP:SIGCOV or are you able to find anything that is? Geschichte (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iceland. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. blikar.is is a Breidablik fansite and the others are routine transfer stories/interviews. Tímarit.is has 31 hits for him but the majority are just being in the squad list. Dougal18 (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Speaking the language and knowing where to look for coverage, I was unable to find any significant coverage on the player. While top players in the Icelandic league very often get significant coverage, the subject is just not at that stage yet. I pretty much found the same as others above, i.e. interview-heavy articles with little prose, short transfer or contract announcements and match recaps. Alvaldi (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did come across this that has a few paragraphs about his career. Alvaldi (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that source initially :) Personally I think it's a little superficial to count that much. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought I had looked at all the sources you mentioned :) One thing about that source, it does state that there is more coverage about the subject in the print version of Morgunblaðið that same day. That said, even if it was a four page coverage, the article still needs multiple sources of significant coverage. The more I read about him, the more I think this is just a little bit WP:TOOSOON. Alvaldi (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unsure, I don't know how big football is in Finland, does he have better coverage in Finnish sources? There is certainly some routine stuff that adds up to showing a bit of notability. But is it enough for the stupid high standards of today! :/ Govvy (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy He is Icelandic where football is the number one sport. However, starters in the Icelandic top-tier league are not guaranteed to receive sigcov which he unfortunately does not have. Note that WP:GNG technically only requires two significant sources to pass, which isn't a terribly high bar. Alvaldi (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvaldi: Alas, either I had wires crossed, had an ex-Finnish girlfriend on my mind or maybe it's just plain old age now! :/ Govvy (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It happens to the best of us :) Alvaldi (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge‎ to Manchurian nationalism. Malinaccier (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manchukuo Government

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

This seems to have been a joke in 2009, and now it's over. WP:N isn't temporary, but 2/3rds of the sources aren't reliable or aren't primary about the topic, leaving what I count as three-to-five bemused NOWNews/Ming Pao pieces that read more like Buzzfeed than Buzzfeed News. Maybe that sounds like enough to others, but given the facile substance I really don't think they need an article. Remsense诉 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Royalty and nobility, and China. Remsense诉 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to make myself late for work again so not really much time to look for sources etc., but my initial impression is a slight leaning merge to Manchukuo § In popular culture. Please remind me to circle back this week. I've got a lot going on and will likely forget. Folly Mox (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There aren't more sources. Everything I'm finding with keywords in English or Chinese falls into one of three buckets: 1. Wikimedia sites 2. "official" websites of the group 3. false positives.
This does seem to be some kind of joke, or perhaps an earnestly serious effort by a half dozen college students with no self-awareness, that reads as a joke to everyone else. In any case, it certainly doesn't deserve treatment as a government in exile nor as a legitimate independence movement.
It is – to me – extremely funny that the second emperor elected by the group was a kid in New York with no claims of ties to Manchuria, and I think the absurdity of this whole thing deserves preservation, probably against content guidelines, so I'm landing at merge, and like Microplastic Consumer's merge target suggestion below equally well as my own suggestion above. Folly Mox (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for funsies that the zh.wp article is disambiguated with (Internet Country), and ==See also==s Micronation. Folly Mox (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Manchurian Nationalism, the government in exile doesn't seem to be very serious. Seems to be either run by trolls or Japanese nationalists as opposed to a serious independence movement Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Daniel (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaji Bhangare

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

WP:CASTE cruft bio created by IP socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. First tried to hijack Gamaliel when that failed started this page through another IP hop. Gotitbro (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Military, India, and Maharashtra. Gotitbro (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I can not verify any sources except for one but that is not on the subject of this page. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the article is not properly written but it meets the WP:GNG and WP:V per the cited sources.2409:4051:38B:9FBC:2307:730F:F39B:ED93 (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)— 2409:4051:38B:9FBC:2307:730F:F39B:ED93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: article is related to the Maratha Army of the Maratha empire that ruled northern India from 1600_1800 and also meets Verifiability.195.170.172.189 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)— 195.170.172.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. One trivial mention in this journal (with the same text as this book). Nothing else. Although weirdly a mention apparently appears in The Wikipedia Revolution (Andrew Lih, 2009) but the contents are unavailable on Google Books so I'm not sure why. C F A 💬 16:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ✗plicit 13:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Kling

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, almost all primary sources provided. The one independent source is a 1 line mention of this person. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Sweden. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a national U21 champion, pass criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In which category of criteria four do you believe the Swedish Junior Speedway Championship falls under? It appears to be amateur, not professional, and of questionable national significance. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Swedish U21 Championship is fully professional, not amateur. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you provide a source for that? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rode in the highest possible tier of not only the British league (equivalent of football's premier league) but also the Swedish league. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added three more non primary sources references to the article, plenty more out there. Pyeongchang (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are 1, 2. Stats page N. 3. SPS stats page N. 4. Team site N. 5. 2-4 non-quote sentences with zero encyclopedic secondary coverage (e.g. "But the Eastbourne Eagles reserve hopes...") N. 6. Trivial mention in transactional news N. 7. Interview with barely one sentence of secondary background info N. 8. Namedrop in transactional news N. 9. Team site N. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets NBIO/GNG. There's several articles with significant coverage of him in Swedish media: [21], [22], [23], [24] AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Accessing the new sources will be helpful in reaching a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete: First and last of sources brought up are very short pieces merely stating that he will participate in some competition or other, so not WP:SIGCOV. The two others are paywalled, so I can't say much about those and they may prove me wrong. On my side, didn't find anything better than name drops. Regarding the possible WP:NMOTORSPORT C4, the U21 championship seems far from national importance, given it has very little coverage and is not even mentioned in Speedway in Sweden. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added three sources. One is a very short news piece, but the other two have more substance. /Julle (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - additional sources added which shows notability per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of 5 keep !votes in 5 minutes, BabbaQ (talk · contribs) including this one in a similar AfD saying there are third party sources when there are none. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar: Just a minor note that the statement that Gunnar Malmqvist has no third-party sources isn't entirely correct – while I haven't gone through all the others to assess them I've added at least one newspaper article myself a couple of weeks ago. /Julle (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per @AlexandraAVX. I also found https://www.smalandsdagblad.se/2021-10-19/kling-hoppas-fa-vetlanda-pa-ratt-vag-igen-en-stor-utmaning and https://vt.se/sport/speedway/artikel/ricky-kling-till-vetlanda/jdgzwz4j, this is wp:SIGCOV for wp:SPORTCRIT alone. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is well sourced and he was won notable championships. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Raja Chanda#Filmography. RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajob Premer Golpo

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

Sources are unreliable. I cannot find anything better to replace in a WP:BEFORE. There are only two pages of hits on GNews and nothing that is reliable from what I see. CNMall41 (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Bangladesh, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raja_Chanda#Filmography: a standard ATD when director and cast are notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Raja_Chanda#As_director. One reliable source by indulgeexpress and it is about the launch of the show and nothing notably significant. All other sources are unreliable on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. I spent some time searching through histories, and eventually it became clear that, as suggested, it was created by the specified editor evading blocks and a ban, and has no significant contributions from anyone else, so it does qualify for speedy deletion. The other reasons given for deletion appear to be valid too, so it would almost certainly have finished up deleted anyway. JBW (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koli Darbar

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

WP:CASTE cruft page created by IP socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala (after failing to hijack Darbar (title)). Nothing in here that isn't already covered in the main articles beyond self-aggrandization. Gotitbro (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and India. Gotitbro (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Not only is there no WP:SIGCOV about this, but it's eligible for a speedy G5 per WP:BRV. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged it for G5. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nunakuzhi

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

Fails WP:FILM and WP:GNG. Declined three times at AfC before creator moved to mainspace. Then disputed draftification. Sources are unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The TOI sources used here are not reliable for notability based on recent RSN discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: will be released in 10 days......Notable cast, notable director. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not based on release date. Are there sources that show notability that are considered reliable?--CNMall41 (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait for 10 days. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the section of notability guidelines where it says to wait 10 days? Very confused as to your rationale. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator could have chosen to leave it incubated until sources came out. Chose not to which is why we are here. In the meantime, release date does not mean notability. There are films that have been released that do not qualify and have been deleted. So again, I am not sure how waiting leads to notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting does not lead to notability. But opening an AfD about a film with notable cast and director 10 days before announced release is a waste of time and implies unnecessary bureaucracy and discussions, in my opinion. In 9-10 days, reviews will be published. And 10 days=less than 1 relist. So, yes, please wait. And as I've explained I consider this is a waste of time, I will leave it at that. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have an issue with me following the process. That is something for ANI. As stated, time does not mean notability. There are films that have been released that have "waited" 10 days (and more) and not been notable. You are assuming this will be notable. Maybe it will be which is why it should have been left in draftspace. But again, here we are. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir/Ma'am,

Thank you for your feedback regarding the Wikipedia article on [Nunakuzhi]. I appreciate your diligence in reviewing the content.

I understand your concern about the timing of the film’s release and the relevance of the article. However, I would like to clarify that the film is indeed genuine and is scheduled for release as planned. The article has been created based on verified information and reliable sources that confirm the film's legitimacy and its forthcoming release.

In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, articles about notable films are often written well in advance of their release, provided there is sufficient verifiable information available. The inclusion of such articles serves to inform the public and preserve historical and cultural records.

If you have specific concerns or require additional sources to verify the film’s status, please let me know. I am happy to provide any further information or make any necessary adjustments to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you for your understanding and for contributing to the quality of Wikipedia. Aditya.nagda (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify again, the editor move the page to mainspace without addressing the concern on why the page was declined. This is the user's first article. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was in draft. It was declined, then rejected, then creator moved to mainspace. I draftified it after that and user immediately returned it to mainspace without addressing the concern. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I guess your right Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the editor move the page to the mainspace without addressing the reason why the draft got rejected. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i would request you to please give go ahead for this film article into mainspace without any interruption and will keep updating the article with fresh press release and new song updates. Aditya.nagda (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page was rejected three times with reason "Submission is about a film not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". The creator of the page failed to address the rejection and moved the page from draft to mainspace twice. The creator should have left the page in draft space to make further improvements but will likely move it back without addressing the rejection as done before and that is my vote is to delete. RangersRus (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pushing a thoughtfully rejected draft to mainspace is not permissible, and efforts to endorse such behavior are ill-advised. @Mushy Yank: we are, in particular, not in the film promotion business. BD2412 T 18:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A very unnecessary personal comment. I stand by my !vote and will certainly not change my mind. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote is an endorsement of an editor pushing a rejected draft to mainspace, rather blatantly for the purpose of getting out ahead of the specific date of a movie premiere. In other words, as advertising rather than documentation. While we do sometimes have articles for highly notable productions in advance of an opening, our purpose is to document things that have proven notable rather than things that we expect to become notable. BD2412 T 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriately personal remark, again. Here’s an Afd about a film and I !voted regarding the film; my !vote is based on common sense. You disagree? Fine. But I was not aware one was not allowed to !vote keep. Who is going to dare !vote keep now that you’ve commented on my !vote in this manner...? Good job. As for me, again, I will certainly not change my mind, even if you add more comments of the same type. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that your "!vote is based on common sense" and not notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologies for moving draft to mainspace. This is my first article i made a mistake and ill improve in it. Kindly forgive for the mistake and vote to keep this article. Lots of hardwork has been put to made this page. Aditya.nagda (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the film process to publish article/page to pass on the people and not promoting. In India, all films have wikipedia page before release. Tomorrow trailer launch is happening and next week film is releasing. I would request to approve and keep the page. Aditya.nagda (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would request you to please close this debate and keep this article and dont nominate to delete as movie trailer is launching tomorrow and movie releasing next week. Aditya.nagda (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya.nagda: Your comments can easily lead one to believe that you have a vested interest in this film. You seem to have a lot of inside information on the release plans, and you say you will keep updating with press releases. This is also pretty much the only article you have edited (WP:SPA) outside a ~~very few~~ single move of another page to a typo and back. Are you involved in the production of the film somehow or have you been paid to create this article? A 'yes' answer is fine; however, you must disclose this information (typically on your user page or User talk page), and a neutral party should be reviewing to ensure the article is acceptable (that is one of the few cases where AfC is a requirement). Also, stating that in India, all films have wikipedia pages before release is not true. Some may get through, but they are not supposed to get through unless a notable production has been shown. If you see pages published before their release without notable production information, you are encouraged to nominate those for deletion as well. "Forgiving the mistake and keeping the article" can also be accomplished by sending it back to draft space and allowing a different editor to move it back at the appropriate time. -2pou (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes im part of the film production thats why i have all information about the film. Trailer is releasing today evening at 6.30pm and buzz is gonna be crazy after the trailer launch. This film is directed by well known malayalam director which is Mr.Jeethu Joseph. Aditya.nagda (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would !vote delete given the contentious move history; however, if User:Aditya.nagda is willing to refrain from another move, I would alternatively !vote to re-draftify. Because we do not promote, there is no rush, and no harm if the article is published the day after its release, for example. We can still "inform the public and preserve historical and cultural records after a review is published. -2pou (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also !vote to re-draftify. This article can be forced to enter the AfC process or User:Aditya.nagda can agree to not move the page or be restricted rights to. DareshMohan (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree, but I would be completely against it at this point UNLESS the mainspace name is protected to prevent user from doing what they shouldn't have done in the first place. If we can agree on that I would fully support it. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin could salt both Nunakkuzhi AND Nunakuzhi (looks like there might be some move shenanigans as well), and we could add an AfC comment that the AfC reviewer will have to request it be unprotected before acceptance. -2pou (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The director has said the actual translation of the film title has kk like Nunakkuzhi but the film has got known by people and trending on social media with single k so therefore it was some confusion but now its fixed with single k in the title which is NUNAKUZHI. Aditya.nagda (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where has the director said this? Do you know the director personally or can you provide the source with the statement they made?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are producers and we know him personally Aditya.nagda (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to end this discussion and vote to keep this article and remove the article for deletion tag. Aditya.nagda (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which accounts are "we?" It is clear that you have a WP:COI based on the omission which was already prevalent prior. You will need to read WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure per that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Can't believe a producer wrote this (makes me not want to edit here when people here are part of the film). Feel free to delete it. DareshMohan (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DareshMohan:, I get it, but I won't let you leave. lol. You are one of the few people holding down the film industry in that region on Wikipedia who is not UPE. You do good work! --CNMall41 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not paid contribution Aditya.nagda (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would request you all to end this discussion and keep this article. Shift to mainspace after review, trailer is out yesterday and it has got great response all over social media. Aditya.nagda (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request You'll to make the decision as soon as possible. Aditya.nagda (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will remain open until a full week since its opening has passed. A final decision won't be set until after 08:22 GMT, 5 August 2024. -2pou (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and WP:NYF. UPE editors often create articles for films or TV series before they launch as part of their PR strategy. The only keep vote here states, will be released in 10 days... Notable cast, notable director which doesn’t make sense and clearly falls under WP:ATA. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Emirates SkyCargo#Destinations as a natural ATD, without prejudice against a selective merger. Owen× ☎ 12:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emirates SkyCargo destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, common sense.

Common sense is failed because this is a cargo airline that will fly cargo to anywhere you pay them the money to fly to, whose services mostly over-lap with the Emirates passenger airline. The historical development of the services of this company are already summarised in Emirates_SkyCargo#History, so there is nothing that needs merging here.

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

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is entirely sourced either to the company website or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, Lists, and United Arab Emirates. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: numerous WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
This is not "A resource for conducting business" so NOTCATLOGUE does not apply. We provide information about products and services in countless places on Wikipedia, and when presented neutrally as an overview like this it is not a forbidden. "a complete listing of the services of a company" FALSE. A complete listing would include when these flights are, what it costs to ship with them, what planes are used, etc. This page cannot be used "for conducting the business of the topic of the article", it is merely places they fly. I would agree there is limited notability for cargo routes that would require a standalone article, with limited coverage outside trade press, but this junk argument is not grounded in policy. Reywas92^Talk 14:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Reywas92. I think the argument that this is not useful for business might have more weight if others had not argued repeatedly over the years that these lists should be kept precisely because they were useful for doing business (to pick one example from many - "These lists are good sources for the travellers and even for the airline companies, since they are even not aware of where they fly to.")

"We provide information about products and services in countless places on Wikipedia" - this is the classic WP:WAX argument, but it is also wrong in that whilst we certainly provide information where due, we don't typically aim to provide complete and exhaustive listings of the goods and services of a company. In reality, when, for example, a complete listing of Happy Meal Toys came to AFD, it got deleted. Twice.

"A complete listing would include when these flights are, what it costs to ship with them, what planes are used" - All you're saying here is that there's more that could have been added to the catalogue we have here, not that it isn't a catalogue of services that Emirates SkyCargo performs. Indeed, what we have here is more or less the data Emirates provides on its website about its "network", which is why the Emirates SkyCargo website is the source for nearly everything on this page. FOARP (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDB. This is no more than Emirates SkyCargo's destination map in list form. Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository of airline destinations. Also we shouldn't be keeping a record of every place this company has flown to in history. Sunnya343 (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. This is something I don't think has really been discussed. It is often asserted that listing of previous destinations are of "historical interest". If that was really the case we would see articles from academics and historians covering them, but we don't. Assembling a list of all services ever offered by a company is basically original research and an WP:NLIST fail. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge to Emirates SkyCargo#Destinations. While I agree that this is not appropriate in a standalone article, it is more than reasonable to have some list of destinations in the article on the carrier itself. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. Closing all three of these nominations per the discussion at ANI, noting that the nominator has also been blocked for a week for conduct adjacent to these AfD's. This close explicitly does not preclude a discussion at a suitable venue (ie. article talk pages) about content forking/merging/etc. Daniel (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Kamala Harris

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

Forks upon forks upon forks of Kamala Harris pages. should be deleted and merged back to the main page. Bohbye (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bohbye (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, United States of America, and California. Raladic (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some of the content of the page didn't even come from the main article, so a merge back doesn't make sense. This is a notable WP:SUMMARY article on the public image including sub-topics such as KHive and merging it into the main article makes not sense on the basis of WP:SIZERULE (which only after the recent size-splits, all of which you decided to mass-nominate for deletion, has gotten back to readable size based on our guidelines). Raladic (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - a reasonable split from her main article, if all three of these articles nominated for deletion were merged back into her main BLP, that would put the readable prose size at 13,000+ words which is too long to read and navigate comfortably. And my crystal ball predicts her main article will only get longer now with her candidacy for president. It's inevitable. It's a good thing these splits are being done early, instead of dragging our feet. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all of the above; this is a valid split to avoid bloating the main article. Left guide (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Quite aside from the comments given above, the nom has failed to proffer any rationale whatsoever for deletion/merger, let alone a valid one; newsflash, content forks are allowed on Wikipedia. Looks WP:POINTy to me. Ravenswing 12:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Considering how many other like articles exist under Category:Public image of American politicians, it would be in keeping with the norm. Among those already existing is Public image of Donald Trump. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Per above. Also, see this related ANI thread. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is another bad-faith AFD from this user who has now been blocked. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. Closing all three of these nominations per the discussion at ANI, noting that the nominator has also been blocked for a week for conduct adjacent to these AfD's. This close explicitly does not preclude a discussion at a suitable venue (ie. article talk pages) about content forking/merging/etc. Daniel (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Harris's tenure as Attorney General of California

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

This another recent fork of Kamala Harris Should be deleted and merged back into the main page. Bohbye (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bohbye (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was a proper WP:SIZESPLIT of an article that is 3500 words, suggesting to merge it back into the main article that is sitting at 6200 words after the split makes no sense. Raladic (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, United States of America, and California. Raladic (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is not a content fork, it is a subarticle with a WP:SUMMARY in the main article, as the result of a recent split. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - a reasonable split from her main article, if all three of these articles nominated for deletion were merged back into her main BLP, that would put the readable prose size at 13,000+ words which is too long to read and navigate comfortably. And my crystal ball predicts her main article will only get longer now with her candidacy for president. It's inevitable. It's a good thing these splits are being done early, instead of dragging our feet. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all of the above; this is a valid split to avoid bloating the main article. Left guide (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Quite aside from the comments given above, the nom has failed to proffer any rationale whatsoever for deletion/merger, let alone a valid one. Looks WP:POINTy to me. Ravenswing 12:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Other like articles exist . Given the office she is running for, it's appropriate to list her achievements of Calif Atty General. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Per above. Also, see this related ANI thread. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Bad-faith nomination from a now-blocked user. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. Closing all three of these nominations per the discussion at ANI, noting that the nominator has also been blocked for a week for conduct adjacent to these AfD's. This close explicitly does not preclude a discussion at a suitable venue (ie. article talk pages) about content forking/merging/etc. Daniel (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and career of Kamala Harris

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

This is a fork of Kamala Harris. This should be deleted and merged into the main page. Bohbye (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bohbye (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify the discussion to a propose split is still ongoing (See Talk:Kamala Harris#Split proposal) Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And pretty much everyone there is opposing it. Bohbye (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a proper WP:SIZESPLIT of an article that is 2800 words, suggesting to merge it back into the main article that is sitting at 6200 words after the split makes no sense. Raladic (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, United States of America, and California. Raladic (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is well sourced. Merging back into the main page doesn't make sense since there was a WP:SIZESPLIT proposal already being discussed and also it makes it easier for readers to read when split into different standalone articles. Galaxybeing (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is not a content fork, it is a subarticle with a WP:SUMMARY in the main article, as the result of a recent split. Additionally, there is already a discussion going on to endorse or reverse the split, which this AfD is duplicitive of. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - a reasonable split from her main article, if all three of these articles nominated for deletion were merged back into her main BLP, that would put the readable prose size at 13,000+ words which is too long to read and navigate comfortably. And my crystal ball predicts her main article will only get longer now with her candidacy for president. It's inevitable. It's a good thing these splits are being done early, instead of dragging our feet. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per arguments above; this is a valid split to avoid bloating the main article. Left guide (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. "Delete and merge", as the nominator asks for, is not a possible option due to writer attribution. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Quite aside from the comments given above, the nom has failed to proffer any rationale whatsoever for deletion/merger, let alone a valid one. Looks WP:POINTy to me. Ravenswing 12:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Too much coverage to merge back into main article. The heft of the topic itself qualifies for a Keep. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Per above. Also, see this related ANI thread. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above 750 h+ 13:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Bad-faith nomination from a now-blocked user. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 a G3 hoax/blatant misrepresentation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rabindranath Tagore filmography

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

The page was created by a now-blocked sock puppet. The content within the page appears to be entirely made up; a lot of the entries listed are actually the works of Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay (could be a case of WP:HOAX). Not to mention that we already have the article Adaptations of works of Rabindranath Tagore in film and television, which would only make this page a redundant duplicate. Keivan.f^Talk 05:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:HOAX should be deleted immediately Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redundant duplicate at best. Commonssense (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Misleading and duplicate resulting as a hoax — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adaptations of works of Rabindranath Tagore in film and television -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would best to delete it first and then redirect it to the original article because merely redirecting it at this point would keep all the inaccurate content within the page's history. Keivan.f^Talk 17:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for your thoughtful reply and concern; I wouldn't worry about it too much, though, if it’s in the history of a redirect page; and keeping a redirect allows to keep history and credits of all the accurate content too. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and West Bengal. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misleading article. Orientls (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and India. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for G3 deletion based on the comments here. Jdcomix (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I contested it. The page cannot be said a blatant hoax. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Moravian-Silesian Football League

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. Generally, within the Czech football system, only professional competitions have separate season articles. This is not a professional competition and imho does not belong in the encyclopedia. FromCzech (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notion that only professional leagues have seasons is completely wrong, cf. both lower divisions in England, France etc. as well as first-tier leagues in smaller countries. A league as high as the third tier can be expected to have enough coverage to sustain a league season (as opposed to individual club seasons), especially in a country where football is developed and ingrained in the culture. Geschichte (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Total lack os sources, and as it is a minor championship it cannot be assumed WP:GNG. At best, the creation of the article was hasty. Svartner (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources, especially significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 for not meeting the notability requirements for a business. RL0919 (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1-2-3-4 Go! Records

AfDs for this article:

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

I have done a preliminary WP:BEFORE and while I am finding insignificant coverage in notable mainstream media, coverage encompassing WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH in independent reliable coverage in publications with high level of WP:AUD is not met. Graywalls (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Graywalls (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a lot of mentions and churnalism but cannot find anything that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBUSINESS. Meaningless local awards from a niche newspaper, and notability is not inherited by whatever bands have performed there. No idea what the "roster" in the article is supposed to represent. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roster is a list of bands that are on the label. This is a store and a record label. The East Bay Express is a noted weekly paper in the East Bay. You may think that is Niche but they have won several notable awards for their journalism. 38.42.204.58 (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 03:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli occupation (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. The guideline WP:Broad-concept article says not to create a dab page when we already have an article—Israeli-occupied territories—that covers all of the subjects listed on the dab page (and has convenient links for the subtopics in the first few sentences of the lead). (t · c) buidhe 03:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria. (t · c) buidhe 03:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be useful for below pages
Astropulse (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "This could be useful for below pages"? Articles don't link to dab pages except as a hatnote, but hatnotes are not appropriate for any of these articles because their titles are unambiguous. (t · c) buidhe 03:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone google, Israeli occupation and reaches west bank occupation - disambiguation page may be used to direct to appropriate page they are looking for Astropulse (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have nothing else to add, it's simply redundant. Jdcomix (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of an important guideline: WP:Broad-concept article. gidonb (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. One can add {{lookfrom|Israeli occupation}} to the bottom of Israeli-occupied territories if one really wants to see the WP:PARTIAL matches. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already an article about Israeli-occupied territories. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge‎ to Incident management as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incident management (ITSM)

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, and Technology. C F A 💬 03:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article sounds like a WP:DICTIONARY definition Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with Incident management. Tule-hog (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Incident management: Can easily be included as a subsection on the latter article, though the sources here are not great. Recon rabbit 14:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

I don't see a consensus here but no one has voted to Keep this article so the default is to Soft Delete discussions like this. The article can be restored through WP:REFUND should sources be found that establish notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Tomassian

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

nonnotable voice actor - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and France. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm trying to evaluate WP:ENT, but Alexis Tomassian § Filmography is pretty misleading; for instance, Tomassian did not voice Zuko in A:TLA, but rather in its French dub. The best I can find so far is voicing the main characters of Martin Mystery and The Podcats, and the latter's notability is questionable. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He also voiced Samson in Calamity, a Childhood of Martha Jane Cannary; he's listed as the third star, and a review describes Samson as the plot's initial catalyst. That looks like a significant role to me. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a significant coverage of Tomassian. In fact, not a mum about him. Notability not inherited - Altenmann >talk 18:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll paraphrase the part of WP:ENT that applies here: An actor or voice actor may be considered notable if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films or television shows. That's from a subject-specific notability guideline. "Significant coverage" has nothing to do with that – it's only in WP:GNG. I also don't see your point with WP:INHERIT – that section names SNGs as a case where notability can be inherited. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for clarification. Still, I fail to see "initial catalyst" is "significant role": Samson is covered in a single sentence. If a role is significant, surely it deserves more than that. About INHERIT, thanks again, I stand corrected. - Altenmann >talk 22:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The review's pretty sparse on plot in general, and Samson's one sentence is more than any other (non-main) character gets. Calamity, a Childhood of Martha Jane Cannary § Plot goes into more detail, and he's mentioned in 9 sentences there (mostly as "the soldier", but that's unambiguous). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be obnoxious, but one needs an independent source that describes character's role as "significant" or similar, otherwise it is Wikipedian's opinion/original research. In the case of Calamity, I inclined to believe, because imdb say "starring Salomé Boulven Alexandra Lamy Alexis Tomassian", implying these are major roles, but unfortunately imdb is not a valid ref for wikipedia. OK. I'm done being obnoxious here. :-) - Altenmann >talk 23:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that notability needs to be based on reliable sources, but we're never going to get a reliable source to directly support a claim that "this subject is wikinotable". That's probably why WP:NOR's lead says it doesn't apply to deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red herring. Strawman. Muddy waters. Don't give it to me. We need a source which supports our requirement for notability. In this case we need sources which imply that the actor had "significant roles in multiple notable films or television shows". And this must acceptable for the article, not for AfD bickering. - Altenmann >talk 07:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? It's not a red herring. WP:NOR literally states that This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Can you explain why you think we need those particular sources, given that WP:NOR does not apply? jlwoodwa (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You cannot base article content on non-reliable sources. Just the same, you cannot judge subject notability basing on self-published sources. Are you seriously telling me that if actor's mom says that her boy is the greatest actor, then we write a Wikipedia article about him? AfD discussions routinely judge sources, and WP:NOR has nothing to do with this. - Altenmann >talk 16:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling you that. I don't know why you'd think I'm telling you that. As I said before, I agree that notability needs to be based on reliable sources. I'm only objecting to your statement that one needs an independent source that describes character's role as "significant" or similar, otherwise it is Wikipedian's opinion/original research. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not objecting that a certain degree of "original research" is necessary in AfD discussions: of course, judging sources is kinda "original research", but this kind of Wikipedian's opinion about sources is everywhere in Wikipedia, and it is not really original research. I see we are in the same page here, so never mind. - Altenmann >talk 20:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Donaldd23's improvements, Zombillenium now looks notable, and a review describes Steven (Tomassian's character) for three sentences. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, interesting discussion but we need some firm opinions on what should happen with this article and so far, I don't see any other than the nominator's. As for sources, I've seen dozens of actors' bios at AFD and "significant role" is typically judged not by a reliable source that says, exactly, that an actor's role was significant but by whether their character is listed as a main character in the film information. But there have been successful arguments that some supporting roles are also significant so there is an element of subjectivity involved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz summarized the discussion correctly: we need sources that the actor had significant role, i.e., they were either among main characters (no further sources needed) or among supporting roles which were somehow noted by critics (e.g. award for "best supporting role" (but in the latter case it is for notability anyway), or other mentions, eg I saw statements that this or that secondary role unexpectedly rose to prominence in a film due to actor's extraordinary acting). - Altenmann >talk 03:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- <sigh> I have to go against my own nom, since nobody else bothers: Tomassian voiced Kaworu Nagisa (in French dubbing), definitely among main chars. - Altenmann >talk 03:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 01:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NTEAM. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Philippines. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Traumnovelle (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. C F A 💬 04:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 01:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from independent sources to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NTEAM. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Botswana. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Traumnovelle (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. C F A 💬 04:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and the single source cited has no relation to article subject. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 02:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Injective Labs

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

I do not believe there is sufficient mainstream reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP and WP:NCRYPTO. Uhooep (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Technology, and Internet. C F A 💬 02:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is Techcrunch WP:RS? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general guidance for TechCrunch is to carefully evaluate who is speaking (

WP:TECHCRUNCH). The (~~TechCrunch article is~~) two TechCrunch articles are routine business buzz, heavily reliant on what the company says, failing both the significance and independence tests of WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is heavily reliant to WP:TECHCRUNCH. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are all routine announcements or churnalism. In this instance, the TechCrunch articles could be used to cite content on the page, but not used to establish notability. They are bylined articles but the majority of the information comes from the company (likely press release which TechCrunch likes to rewrite and publish as their own content). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Daniel (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Injective (platform)

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

I am not convinced there is sufficient mainstream reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP and WP:NCRYPTO. Uhooep (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Products, Technology, and Internet. C F A 💬 02:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple articles from reliable sources that are about the company and its products. The announcements of $$investments don't generally add to notability, but the articles in TechCrunch and ZDnet are substantive. (I do note that one source is marked as failing verification and a G-books search inside it gets zero hits for Invective. That source should be removed. I'll see if I can find another source for that.) Lamona (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the platform has received coverage from multiple reliable sources and plays some not minor role in the Web3 and DeFi.Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable for its industry. It has ZDnet, books, Techcrunch and other coverage. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note: "TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability".
  "ZDNet was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020. There is consensus that ZDNet, along with other online properties of Red Ventures, is generally unreliable. Editors express concern that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner". Uhooep (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC
  - The analysis of Tech Crunch at Perennial Sources is a warning, and advises that one should make sure the article is written by a legit author and isn't some random blog post. In this case, the author is Mike Butcher (journalist) who does appear to be a reliable journalist in this area. Lamona (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/canadian-future-party-officially-launches--august-14-2024

[2] ttps://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7294230

[3] ttps://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/not-left-not-right-but-forward-dominic-cardy-officially-launches-new-centrist-federal-political-party-1.7000587

[4] ttps://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/national/from-centre-ice-conservatives-to-canadian-future-a-new-federal-party-takes-shape/article_b1906e0a-ed2c-54d0-b0e3-d734e2037c08.html

[5] ttps://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianFutureParty/

[6] ttps://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/1erpwyz/a_former_progressive_conservative_who_calls/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]