Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 14	July 16 >

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wiesmann

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

I speedy-deleted the article for promotion, and it was then recreated with the promotional material removed. It was then PRODded, but the PROD was removed. On its face (I haven't done WP:BEFORE because I'm lousy at it, especially when most of the sources are non-English), Wiesmann appears to be a senior investment banker but nothing rising to the level of satisfying WP:GNG. Although not dispositive here, Wiesmann doesn't have an article at de.wiki. Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find sourcing about a radiologist/doctor, a German car company and a few other things, but nothing comes up for this particular person. Sourcing used now in the article is either primary, or confirmation of his appointment to one job or another. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete doesn’t seem to meet WP:ANYBIO. Saw a lot of sources, but most of them basically the same biography. No WP:SIGCOV. Vorann Gencov (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO as a WP:MILL investment banker. All sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 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. After discarding views not based on P&G, we're left with a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 12:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Malviya

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

The article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Single significant role in Udaariyaan. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Editingmylove (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least one significant award won and 3 significant award nominations have her meet WP:ANYBIO imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ - Delete - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. ~~I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine.~~ --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen anyone provide coverage that would show notability so changing to a delete !vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [1], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality, show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.32.83 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your contibutions which is only this comment and anyone can say that you are the account created to this comment only. Columbidae5 (talk) 15:03, 1 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 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is looking like fan made article who is doing undo removed content. Neutral point of view is also missing in the article. It looks like promotional content. Columbidae5 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable personality. Filmography with different credits. Nominations and wins in terms of two known awards. Additionally, this seems to be another potential attempt by online supporters of other actors. The previous deletion discussion of this page was quite similar and was started by a fan of another ITV actress. This seems to be yet another example of social media hate propaganda. OCDD (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she is a notable actress and model who has gained significant recognition for her role in the popular television series "Udaariyaan," contributing to her widespread popularity. Additionally, her career achievements and public interest make her a relevant figure in the entertainment industry --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and Columbidae5's comment above. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 09:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please do not focus on the nominator and instead consider whether NACTOR is met and assess the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources are all passing mentions within routine announcements and contain zero biographical detail. Inclusion on Wikipedia is determined by sourcing, not by number of awards, award nominations, popularity, public interest or strong fanbase. The actress clearly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR.--Ilovetvshows (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is decent coverage, but it's quite short. [2], Still not quite enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Not seeing enough in-depth coverage that's not from poor quality sources or paid/churnalism. Ravensfire (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to have some concerns that this is a bad-faith nomination by a sock / meat puppet of a blocked editor. My view still stands. Ravensfire (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:SBST, "tabloid journalism is not significant coverage," and that's what this WP:REFBOMB of a promotional article is. Twenty-two citations are to the Times of India's tabloid entertainment channel ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]), which is considered an unreliable source per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. TellyChakkar ([25], [26]), Bollywood Hungama ([27], [28], [29]), TimesNowNews ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]), News18 ([37], [38], [39], [40]), Economic Times Panache blog section, Zee News, DNAIndia, and the rest have similar problems (search for these publications on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard). Several links are to WP:YOUTUBE which for these purposes is a primary source. Basically, there is no non-tabloid, non-affiliated, reliable-source WP:SIGCOV of this individual to satisfy the tests of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER.

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) asilvering (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSilver Framework

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

Fails WP: N. The Krill article is routine coverage, and the rest of the sources are closely affiliated with Userware or aren't reliable. This was dePRODed without any sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirecting and/or merging to Microsoft Silverlight is an AtD that I'm comfortable with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HyperAccelerated,

Can you please explain how the most relevant online sources related to software development, such as InfoQ, Visual Studio Magazine, InfoWorld, and SD Times, could be close to Userware? Can you please tell me what you would expect as a source? If I add all the articles written about OpenSilver in the past years, will it increase the relevance according to you? The complete functional source of the framework is on GitHub, with visible contributions from tens of developers and requests from tens of people (I assume representatives of various organizations and individuals who use the framework) for improvements noted under the GitHub issues. OpenSilver is a relevant solution for many organizations trying to find a solution for their Microsoft Silverlight (already discontinued technology) legacy solutions, and it's free and open source. How is it not worth being part of Wikipedia when some of the most relevant online magazines write about its development and growth over the years? Vasbu (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any credentials for David Ramel when I first nominated the article. I took a second look, and it appears he's been writing about technology for awhile at this point. I'll consider him a reliable source then. I'll withdraw if you come forth with another source to establish notability, because notability generally requires multiple sources. On the other hand, the number of contributors and pull requests has not, is not, and will never be a metric for notability. Please keep the discussion about sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated, are you satisfied with the sources brought up below? -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also really should not be creating articles about subjects that you have a disclosed conflict of interest with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt reply @HyperAccelerated.

Aside from Visual Studio Magazine and David Ramel, please find the following list of sources:

InfoQ - It has been one of the most relevant online sources for software development topics since 2006. InfoQ team started following OpenSilver in 2020 and covered several releases of OpenSilver (I assume whenever they identified interest according to their editorial strategy). The writers covering OpenSilver topics are Edin Kapic, a Microsoft MVP based in Barcelona, Spain, and Arthur Casals, an AI Researcher with a Ph.D.
InfoWorld - It is one of the trusted sources of information related to open-source, application development, cloud computing, and other IT-related topics. InfoWorld has also covered OpenSilver, with a few news articles from the past 3-4 years. The OpenSilver-related articles are written by Paul Krill, an editor with 30+ years of experience in InfoWorld Media Group. InfoWorld is a part of the Foundry umbrella along with CIO, CSO, Computer World, Mac World, PC World, and others. They explicitly say they don't accept contributing articles to collect visits and publicity.
I Programmer was founded by Mike James, an editor-in-chief and author of books. I Programmer published a series of articles about OpenSilver in the past years. Besides Mike James other authors covered the articles related to OpenSilver including Alex Denham and Kay Ewbank.
Ghacks - a tech postal has 2 articles about OpenSilver. The author of the articles is Martin Brinkmann.
Kurt Shintaku's blog - Kurt Shintaku is a Client Technology Lead at Microsoft, working for about 30 years in the corporation. He found an interest in OpenSilver in the early days when OpenSilver was beta. He recognized OpenSilver as a suitable solution for owners of Microsoft Silverlight-based solutions when Microsoft announced the end of support.
The Register - The article was written by Tim Anderson, a journalist who covers various technical topics.
Matt Eland's Blog - Kill all defects - Matt Eland is a US-based Microsoft MVP in AI interested in OpenSilver as an open-source technology for replacing MS Silverlight. Obviously, he was motivated in 2020 to write about it in his blog. He is a blogger, book, and course author.
AlternativeTo.org - it has been recognized as an alternative or in a way successor of MS Silverlight.
Distributed Memory Blog was created by an independent software developer Steve Gilham who wrote a series of tech articles related to OpenSilver.

Vasbu (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please find one more source:

Root.cz - In 2021 Petr Krčmář was writing about OpenSilver, recognizing a potential solution in it for those who have custom developed applications based on MS Silverlight.

Vasbu (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spider's Web Portal - The Polish online magazine Spider's Web published an article about OpenSilver written by Hubert Thaler - an software engineer and manager with 25+ years experience in the domain. He wrote 1000+ articles for the portal.

Vasbu (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heise online - An article written by Holger Schwichtenberg, German author of computer books.

Vasbu (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde Informatique - One of the leading IT news websites in France. It covers software development, IT infrastructure, cybersecurity, and digital transformation. The site is known for its in-depth articles and industry analysis. They re-published the article by Paul Krill, originally written and published on InfoWorld. Jean Elyan (respected journalist with 25+ years of experience working for companies such as IDG Communications) adopted the French version of the article.

Vasbu (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OpenSilver is the defacto open-source successor to Microsoft's Silverlight framework. [41], [42]. It has independent coverage in notable industry publications including Visual Studio Magazine and InfoWorld. GobsPint (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage is present, nothing seems to be wrong with WP:GNG either. Vorann Gencov (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated I updated the sources in the article. Please take a look when you have time to review the update. Thank you. Vasbu (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get another review of these sources brought up in this discussion. Right now, I see no consensus to Delete or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The non-blogs brought forth above are good enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vasbu. Substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:28, 21 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asger Svendsen

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

Could find very little through a Google search; no WP:SIGCOV, only passing mentions. Reference on the article's page is a dead link, and an external link is from a primary source (via Wayback Machine) that doesn't look as though it has been updated since about 2008. Doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. ExRat (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ExRat (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ExRat (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ExRat (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I found this article about Svendsen in Sydsvenskan that discusses his career at length. However, this is the only piece of significant coverage that I could find. If more sources were found of this quality I would support keeping the article, but as it stands there is not enough coverage to meet general notability. Uffda608 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's also this somewhat shorter piece from Politiken. Barely passes my interpretation of WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:SIGCOV. The Politiken link is not to an article, but is a biographical entry. Depending on its context—does the newspaper host some kind of national musical lexicon?—it might help the subject meet criterion 3 of WP:ANYBIO. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The text in Politikken is an article. It was published in connection with Svendsen's 70th birthday; thus the "biographical" style. /FredrikT (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for clarifying that. In light of your comment and additional evidence, I'm changing my vote to keep. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:10, 16 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!} 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: This [43] from 1979 but Google only gives me a snippet view due to copyright. He taught in Sweden for a while, there is some coverage there, [44] With those listed above, we have just barely enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Vorann Gencov (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly non-notable. Only one reference exists, and even then it's a permanent dead link. Haruka Amaranth 14:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HarukaAmaranth: Did you see the sources mentioned earlier in this discussion? I've now added a couple of them to the article. /Julle (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage identified by Julie and others in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is also this, this (chamber recording he was in on Schwann Catalog), and this, in addition to the sources listed above by Uffda608, Julle (and NO!!! It is definitely not a mere biographical entry), and Oaktree b. More than enough to satisfy the wp:gng in my view. Zingarese talk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 01:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be just barely over the required source coverage. – Aza24 (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:23, 15 July 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!} 23:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIRACL (security firm)

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. The IBTimes article about them discontinuing a product is seemingly the only reliable, secondary source in the article right now. A cursory search hasn't turned up more coverage. Brandon (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and United Kingdom. Brandon (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, sources in the article are PR announcements and run-of-the-mill coverage that relies entirely on material provided by the company or their execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:05, 16 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan O'Neill-Stevens

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

It is unusual to have a deputy mayor having a WP article. I don't think he meets WP:NPOL. Making comments in the media about your political stance is not WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Some coverage [45], others around being the youngest candidate and an LGBTQ individual, both of which are fine, but I don't see quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm somewhat surprised by this nomination. The article has six independent sources that deal with the subject at some depth. Why would that not be enough for GNG? Schwede 66 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this might just be WP:TOOSOON, but he doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and the coverage is just about him as a local politician. SportingFlyer T·C 12:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some coverage cited here, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy GNG. There are thousands of people who meet the definition of being the youngest person to run for a specific office in a specific city, they aren't all going to be notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources meet WP:GNG from my perspective, even if they don't quite make it to WP:NPOL yet.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over the value of the sources in establishing notability. A review of them would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I too am confused here. Looks like an easy GNG pass. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 04:41, 22 July 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. Per WP:G7, upon request by nominator, who was also the only contributor (will be glad to restore to userspace if requested) jp×g 🗯️ 07:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 North Las Vegas shooting

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

This article appears to have been created via a copy-and-paste from Draft:2024 North Las Vegas shooting, despite that draft's recent decline for no sustained notability. Given the number of fatalities, it could be notable if there was sustained coverage, but I don't see evidence of this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Firearms, and Nevada. Pbritti (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Johannes Maximilian as the editor who declined the draft. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was. I did it because of the number of fatalities and because it expanded beyond a domestic violence shooting, which aren't exactly uncommon in the United States. Raskuly (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, there's no coverage in Gnews, at all. I don't even see what's in the article online, meaning it's been buried by other sources... This is not a notable event with no lasting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, can I just have my article deleted already? Raskuly (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Mass shootings are awful but are an everyday occurrence, and not every one automatically warrants an article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 01:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, can I just have my article deleted already? Raskuly (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 16 July 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!} 20:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Healthcare

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

WP:ADMASQ WP:NCORP. Created by a single purpose account whose career on Wikipedia so far is making a series of edits over 13 minutes. While a few non-related changes were made, the primary purpose is evident. Lots of PR Newswire results, some non WP:SIGCOV level of magazine coverage. I conducted some, but not exhaustive WP:BEFORE search and NCORP appears to fail. It appears to be a non-notable likely promo article. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oof. WP:ADMASQ WP:NCORP fail is right. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the exception of a single Washington Post article, all of the coverage consists of non-independent sources like press releases and sponsored content, or WP:ORGTRIV like location openings/closings and investments. Nothing to pass WP:NCORP. Recommend deleting redirects Newport Academy and Newport Institute as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 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. Discarding !votes not based on guidelines, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 12:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Anselm, Duke of Urach

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

The notability of the subject of this article has been in question since 2010. The Lithuanian throne he is the third pretender to only existed for 8 months and was gone long before he was born. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article must improve by adding more reliable sources to establish notability. The historical and genealogical context justifies its presence after several improvements.Yakov-kobi (talk) 23:47, 01 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree - the genealogical and historical context is that his grandfather was elected controversially as King of Lithuania for all of 7 months and in that time he was never even in Lithuania. Wikipedia is not for hosting genelogical entries that do not support the readers understanding of a notable topic. Given the King of Lithuania topic played out long before Karl's birth I fail to see how this article can help with that.

The Duke of Urach title is a courtesy title and I don't believe that's good ground for notability either. D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a genealogical entry with an uncited claim that he was a contender for the throne of Lithuania. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to the reference from the arcticle he owns a huge junk of land (3598 acres), ^[1] the Greshornish Forestry estate.Axisstroke (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think land ownership is grounds for notability. I clicked around on the site of that reference and the first one i opened was https://web.archive.org/web/20090106212545/http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/page_cache/ar/glenbyre.htm someone who owns a similar sized plot who is not notable because they own it. Another similarly sized plot: https://web.archive.org/web/20081204210115/http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/page_cache/ar/turnalt.htm D1551D3N7 (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the size of the land ownership, in this case > 1000 ha, that is a considerable piece of land and hence it is notable. Moreover if it is a notable estate it is notable. Axisstroke (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it depend on the size of the land ownership though? Do any policies exist that say land ownership is grounds for notability? If it were notable then it would be talked about in reliable sources and not just in a land ownership registry. This land in particular is a forest in a remote part of Scotland. The estate isn't notable, I can't find any sources that say much about it. There's this site that talks about a forest walk between Greshornish and Waternish https://www.visit-waternish.co.uk/greshornish-to-waternish-forests-walk/ and there is Greshornish House which is a hotel but I don't find these very compelling for the argument that the estate itself is notable and that by extension Karl would be. D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/page_cache/in/greshornish_forestry.htm

delete the article itself says the title Duke of Urach was abandoned in 1919, and this is nothing but pseudoaristocratic puffer which contributes nothing to the notability of the person. And there is no other claims of notability. WP:GNG is not satisfied either - Altenmann >talk 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This (as with other similar articles) -- is a merge candidate to the undersourced House of Urach#Dukes where he appears. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owning land - large tracts or not - is not in itself notable. If the area of land (or parts thereof) happens to be notable then owning it still does not confer notability on the owner (WP:NOTINHERITED). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership passes WP:NRV and WP:GNG. The owner has full rights of his land unless of course in communism. Axisstroke (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policies you mention are about notability of article subjects. If you mean that ownership contributes to notability, you are mistaken, there is no such Wikipedia rule. - Altenmann >talk 18:57, 14 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) 20:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 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 per G11 by Hoary. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raisul Islam Ador

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

References are just insignificant mentions. None establish his Wikipedia:Notability. The first reference is almost identical in wording to his official web site. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not a CSD under G11. Creator states they're a paid editor and it's pure propaganda. Kazamzam (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I've nominated for CSD; it's clearly advertising and there is nothing encyclopedic worth keeping. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And... it's gone. Ready for a admin or non-admin closure by any uninvolved editor. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 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!} 20:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Cusi Martinez

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

Academic who appears to be a research scientist, with not many publications, no wider coverage and no major awards. Notability was tagged by a different editor in May, nothing has been done. Hence time for an AfD as he seems to be far short of WP:NPROF Ldm1954 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any criterion of WP:NPROF. Way too early in this scientist's career to establish notability through NPROF. Qflib (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree this ECR does not meet WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taxonomy is a low-citation field, and his citation counts look ok for that field, but not enough to convince me of notability through WP:PROF#C1, and there is nothing else. We have secondary sourcing for some of his research, but its independence is dubious, the research for which we have such sourcing is not the research led by him, and the sources merely name-drop him rather than giving much hint of his role in the research. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 22 July 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!} 20:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lava (programming language)

AfDs for this article:

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

Second AfD nomination (previous: no consensus); no secondary coverage in reliable sources IntGrah (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. IntGrah (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've been babysitting this article for three years. Unfortunately, it hasn't improved in that time. I agree that the topic is not notable and that lacks sources other than the language author's website. More concerning, the principal contributor to this article appears to be the language author himself. The previous AfD failed due to lack of consensus. The only editor defending it was—you guessed it—the author of the language and this article. His reasoning was that if this article is deleted from Wikipedia, it will drastically reduce the traffic to his website. Sorry folks but that's not a reason to keep an article.
Furthermore, the lede of the article states that it's an experimental programming language, meaning that it has limited utility to anyone other than the author and maybe some compiler or language enthusiasts. Something I create in my garage isn't notable until people start noting it, and this should be no different. — voidxor 00:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any sourcing improvements that would establish the subject's notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:07, 18 July 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!} 20:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Thorpe

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

Not notable for article. Only local with no significant coverage. WP:POLITICIAN CheekyUnicorn (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete previous mayors of Antioch weren’t notable, and the current one isn’t either. Mccapra (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, he changed his name [52] and he's done things people don't like, [53], but nothing notable found. Local coverage of the mayor only. I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 15 July 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!} 23:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government First Grade College, Rajajinagar

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

This is a very small college with only 260 places. None of the links to the college website that I could find work. I cannot find any references to the college except very brief summaries of what courses are provided. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn’t seem to meet GNG, no reliable sources provided, and it seems more of an advertisement than an article. The use of “it offers blah” gives it the promotional tone. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:46, 15 July 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) asilvering (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Rashid, Baghdad

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

I couldn't find reliable sources to confirm any of this information. Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also could not find sources Mrfoogles (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Administrative districts in Baghdad. Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have articles on all the administrative districts of Baghdad. It makes no sense to just delete this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination was regarding failure of WP:V. Do you have a rebuttal to that? Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can clearly be verified that it exists. Anything else is cleanup, and AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 15 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!} 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it’s verifiably a municipality of Baghdad 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. BilletsMauves^€500 14:17, 21 July 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NIILM School of Business

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

Entirely unsourced. Fails WP:V, Fails WP:NORG. Rankings are not notability nor verification. WP:BEFORE finds nothing. WP:ADMASQ. Would have used CSD or PROD except for its age. I believe it deserves a discussion, not summary deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Delhi, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSCHOOL. Charlie (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 18:03, 16 July 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. Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Baxish

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

Zero references to establish notability. After searching, found other people of same name, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific person. PROD removed 27 June 2024; PROD reverted 27 October 2022; PROD on 27 October 2022; Created on 27 August 2014. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:59, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mistakenly put a PROD on it last week without checking that it hadn't already had one. I agree with delete per nom. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:45, 1 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Azerbajani article gives 1 reference: "Tamxil Ziyəddinoğlu, "Hafiz Baxış-80". Bütöv Azərbaycan qəzeti, №36(168), 17-23 oktyabr 2012-ci il." This appears to be an article in a reasonable news source. I can't find it but I think he may have significant coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Found a few Azeri sources ([54], [55], [56]) that I think are just over the line of WP:SIGCOV. Reviewing with machine translation though, so could be wrong -- happy to be convinced either way. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:56, 15 July 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Machine in the Garden (band)

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

No reviews at AllMusic: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/machine-in-the-garden-mn0000220430 and otherwise lack of WP:SIGCOV. References requested since 2011 yet none present. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMUSIC with no notable discography, chart activity or awards, in addition to poor sourcing in article as stated by nom. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 01:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The band's website lists many reviews, but WP:RS is a problem with most of these. My own search came up light, with mostly just [57] Geschichte (talk) 07:01, 16 July 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Vander Kaay

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

Mildly promotional biography of a writer fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NWRITER. Sources are all primary (principally WP:INTERVIEWS or the subject's own writing that is not independent) or they are WP:USERGENERATED. No evidence of his books being reviewed by independent reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: articles written by the subject, nothing about him. There is nothing we can use for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:NAUTHOR meeting none of the four criteria. No reliable sources were found. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:55, 16 July 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Csokán

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

I couldn't find sources to add proving he meets WP:PROF / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to be virtually unknown to chemists outside Hungary. Google Scholar lists six publications, five in Hungarian and one in German, with a total of four citations. The Hungarian version of the article says that "More than 200 scientific articles and 17 books, university notes and book excerpts have been published," (from Google Translate), so maybe Google Scholar has it wrong. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think Google Scholar has it wrong. My searches aren't showing any support for any criterion of WP:NPROF being met. Qflib (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We're talking about a scholar who likely retired decades before the WWW existed and published primarily in Hungarian – Google Scholar is definitely wrong. – Joe (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar is definitely wrong, but the whole thing is unsourced, so we should delete this unless we can verify it. Since it was created 13 years ago by a user named Csokan, I don't think we're likely to be able to do that. If anyone finds sources, feel free to ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no sources we cannot have an article. I was hoping the Hungarian version might be better but it also has no sources. It appears (through automatic translation) to be calling him the winner of what might be a notable award, hu:Akadémiai Aranyérem, but the list of winners at that article and the list of winners at the Hungarian Academy [58] do not include his name. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 22 July 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warner Bros. films (1970–1979)

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

I couldn't find sources to add confirming all information, and showing it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep You've gotten nothing but keep votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Columbia Pictures films (1990–1999), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paramount Pictures films (1970–1979), so why the hell are you nominating this too with the same rationale? And why are you only nominating one subpage in a set of eleven? This is a perfectly valid split of Lists of Warner Bros. films, a navigational and informational list that passes NLIST. The lack of sources is a cleanup issue, not a basis for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 16:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many sources on the history and films of Warner Bros. Pictures, including Warner Bros: The Making of an American Movie Studio, Warner Bros: Hollywood's Ultimate Backlot, You Must Remember This: The Warner Bros. Story, and more. The current state of sourcing in the article is not relevant for notability; that can be fixed by editing. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is an obvious split of Lists of Warner Bros. films an obviously notable topic as a set, as has been noted (by me but also by other users) in various recent very similar nominations by the same nominator...... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no good reason not to. CheekyUnicorn (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source is used here and we've got a category called Category:Warner Bros. films and other 'films by year' and 'films by year by genre' cats already; this needs proper sources. "Because it's neat" and "why the hell are you nominating this" are not proper rationales or votes!; I remind others never to attack a nominator just because you disagree with them. Nate • (chatter) 22:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article. References could easily be added but are they really needed for a blue-linked list ? There is a classic Clive Hirschorn book on Warner Brothers " The Warner Bros Story" that includes year summaries for the studio's output and secondary reviews of the individual films that covers this period, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs and Reywas92. Boleyn, this is disruptive. hinnk (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator says they couldn't find sources confirming the information. Did you think to click on the articles linked to? List articles don't have to reference everything, you can find references for the information in the articles they link to. Dream Focus 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That Article Editing Guy (talk) 22:01, 20 July 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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nigerian states by literacy rate

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm the information in this, or to show it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I found [59] which has very different literacy stats. There is no content other than the data-table; Education in Nigeria might be a place to cover literacy in Nigeria more broadly. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list is deleted from the internet. It had a good source with UNESCO. Can someone find in Archives maybe?--Afus199620 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nominator’s reason.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:12, 17 July 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. Canley (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Categoría Primera A season

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

I couldn't find sources to add confirming the information and showing it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep presumably the RSSSF archives would be a source for the statistical data, they are also on ESPN [60]. Generally Wikipedia has article on top-flight football leagues of countries of the size (and football-enthusiasm) of Colombia. There is no non-statistical sourcing; I expect there is some in Spanish but without finding some there is a clear argument for deletion here. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's absolutely notable as a top flight football league. Spanish Wikipedia has sources, but no direct link because it breaks the seasons up into Apertura and Clausura, which contains links to sources: [61] [62] But there's a 100% chance this is notable: I was able to find [63] very quickly, and ESPN Deportes has all of the statistics on their website as well. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change the list of games to the home-away game table which is standard in all league articles today. Geschichte (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources/arguments above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – top level Colombian football championship, and with sufficient sources in Spanish (due to the date of 2006, both online and offline sources are assumed) to be maintained. Svartner (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 draftify‎. ^Complex/_Rational 15:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kodjo Aziangbe

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

Contested PROD; subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sources are limited to databases and routine match coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Much of the sourcing would be in Arabic, Ukrainian and Japanese. Not exactly easy for an English speaker to search Geschichte (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftify as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 19:10, 17 July 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. Malinaccier (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Services

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

Ordinary, run of the mill rehab for the local community that has no place on a global scale encyclopedia. Fails WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it clearly fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage does not support notability under WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 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 List of programmes broadcast by Zee Tamil (India). ^Complex/_Rational 15:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nenjathai Killadhe (2014 TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG; sources are limited to tabloid coverage excluded per WP:SBST and WP:USERGENERATED sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Tamil (India): curiously the series was listed there for years (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Tamil_(India)&oldid=963550928) but has been removed. Will re-add it in and re-create the soap opera section (so that the link I suggest for target is List of programmes broadcast by Zee Tamil (India)#Soap operas. Will add a source (https://nettv4u.com/about/tamil/tv-serials/nenjathai-killadhe/all-cast-and-crew). The fact that a 2024 series with the same title exists (not to mention the 2 feature films) is, I think, another reason to maintain a redirect (so as to help the reader). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with this redirect as nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Alternative transcriptions: Nenjathai Killathe(y) (or Killadey). The show might also be considered notable for the come back as actorr of SPB Charan, after a 13 year gap. But I understand that this might be considered cherry-picking. (not opposed to keep, though, if other users think this is important enough to be noted).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Tamil (India). Not enough reliable coverage to show notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs)
Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Tamil (India). RangersRus (talk) 22:58, 17 July 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 13:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Crocker

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:BIO. It is difficult with things so long ago. Even so, I am struggling to see what makes this industrious man notable in a Wikipedia sense. He appears to have had a decent, unexceptional life, like so many of his peers. WP:ROTM 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally done research on this topic as a professional in the field and can vouch for this page to be published, as is.

I’m confused as to what you mean by “unexceptional”. It’s as if you haven’t read the article, where it is mentioned that he was a postmaster, civil war veteran, trustee of Philippi School and city planner.

He was an early pioneer of Sarasota, Florida and is grouped in with his notable peers (A.B. Edwards, William Whitaker, and John Hamilton Gillespie) in various newspapers which I have provided citation to. The cemetery he established still exists and the church he built is on the historical register and owned by the historical society. Two other Wikipedia pages (Crocker cemetery and Crocker church) reference him as the founder. He deserves to have a page where readers of the other pages can find out who he was and what he did. When citizens of Sarasota go to learn more about their history it is important they have a resource (Wikipedia) to learn about this man and his contributions to the early community. A surplus of information is always better than a lack of it.

Your grounds for deletion, not "notable in Wikipedia sense," have no pertinent standing whatsoever. Htystudent (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the source already listed within the article, here is some verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support the claim of notability. Though, viewing these may be an issue since the database requires a subscription. The links look identical, but they are all individual articles that mention Peter Crocker.

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer Htystudent (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Church article was sent back to draft and the cemetery looks rather non-notable as well. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The church article, if you reviewed the sources, likely meets the notability guidelines and should be published. However, it has not been reviewed. Htystudent (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment both Crocker Cemetery and Crocker Church were created by the same editor as this article, in the past week. Their existence on-wiki does not demonstrate anything. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but were they moved to articles for deletion? That means they were significant enough to still exist, so this page should be as well. Unless you think Peter Crocker did not make the standard for notability, which I have just demonstrated that he likely does. I will include that information in this reply as well.
In addition to the multiple sources already listed within the article, here is some verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support the claim of notability. Though, viewing these may be an issue since the database requires a subscription. The links look identical, but they are all individual articles that mention Peter Crocker.

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Access Newspaper Archive Institutional Version | Viewer

Htystudent (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Htystudent I have left you advice on your user talk page, Most people find such advice of value. I hope you do as well. On a technical matter, I was not allowed under WP:DRAFTIFY to return this to draft once more. My two options since I was not going to edit it were to send it here, or to ignore it. I chose to send it here for community discussion.

Any editor, you included, is entitled to offer Draftification (please place it in 'bold at the start of the line, and on a new line). The deletion discussion is a direct result of your moving it to mainspace before it was ready. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not averse to the outcome of this discussion being to send back to draft for further development. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I cannot view any of the newspaper links to validate whether they include WP:SIGCOV. I agree that Crocker seems like a WP:ROTM individual, but without being able to view the sources I cannot weigh in with a !vote either way. I have not been able to turn up any other appropriate sources to establish notability. If the page creator were to request draftification I would support that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 I have told them the same thing on their user talk page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Served in the army and worked in a lighthouse, this is not notable. Likely better suited to a local history website, I'm not seeing notability for our standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really are very funny with what you choose to read and ignore. It actually does state in the article that Peter Crocker laid out the roads in the area, was postmaster, founder of a cemetery and a church, trustee of one of the first schools in the area and a commissioner. Htystudent (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am able to view the Newspaper Archive sources through WP:TWL and I think most WP:XC users can as well (though I'm not positive). I don't plan on going through all of the newspaper links above, but I have looked over the ones in the article currently:

FN3 (December 1911) - Burb placed in the paper by his wife and an acquaintance expressing gratitude for kindness shown by others during his sickness and death.
FN5 (March 1958) - The region's "Oldest Native" is apparently the daughter of Peter Crocker, and he is briefly mentioned as an Albany native, soldier, and Key West lighthouse tender.
FN6 (March 1906) - One mention in the "County Commissioner's Proceedings" as being designated to mark out a road.
FN7 (January 1907) - One mention in a list of "other growers" in the region.
FN8 (August 1977) Mentioned as introducing coffee beans to the region

All told, this individual seems quite WP:ROTM. He is mentioned in the newspapers, sure, but these mentions are almost all plainly trivial; there is no WP:SIGCOV. AviationFreak💬 01:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The Crockers; Church, cemetery bear family's name - Document - Gale Power Search Htystudent (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The daughter spoke in depth about her father, Peter Crocker, so I don't see how that cannot count. Htystudent (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now been able to access the newspaper archive. I have not checked every archive relating to the subject, and I have taken into account the stye of the era - brevity. Even with this taken into account I only find passing mentions, public notices etc. WP:SIGCOV is not fulfilled. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ones linked directly to the article discuss him more in length, as I mentioned. Htystudent (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see some news/coverage in media, but not GNG here. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://go.gale.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T004&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&retrievalId=951a568c-e995-41e5-b445-f4c298ac82f7&hitCount=10&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA74049424&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZGPN&prodId=GPS&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA74049424&searchId=R2&userGroupName=sara65726&inPS=true

This whole article is solely about him and his family Htystudent (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable by Wiki standards. Intothat darkness 12:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Intothatdarkness and other commentators above. Original author does not seem to have a firm grasp on notability and sourcing guidelines. Kazamzam (talk) 05:05, 21 July 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 List of schools in Selangor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoke Kuan High School

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

Does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG,) not an important school in Malaysia, and no reliable and independent sources cited or significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 10:18, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Selangor. I suggests to refer to the redirected version of Anglo-Chinese School, Melaka despite of the recent discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukit Jalil National Secondary School. I would like to apply my suggestion to the other 19 schools under proposed deletion in [64]. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! 17 of them have just got deleted. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this school along with the 19 other schools should not be exempt from the deletion similarly subjected to the article you cited. N niyaz (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above due to lack of standalone notability, failure to meet WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 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 North Paravur#Educational organisations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational organisations in North Paravur

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

Non notable list per WP:LIST. WP:DIRECTORY applies too with no WP:SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to North_Paravur#Educational_organisations. Changed my vote to redirect because I do not think it makes any better to merge the list that fails significant coverage with no reliable secondary independent sources and fails WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North Paravur: As nominator, I won't mind a redirect to the parent town article either. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:56, 15 July 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. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [65] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 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) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The vast majority of sources in the article are primary or affiliated, or they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that discuss LADA in passing. However, we have a bare minimum pass of WP:NORG with Chatzichristodoulou et al., Martin and Keidan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 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 23:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwize

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a non-notable rapper. Sources are passing mentions and nothing indepth on the subject. I don't see it satisfies WP:NMUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NMUSIC. His only claim to fame is attached to Eminem, and that was 27 years ago. No notable discography or chart activity, and the titles of the citations in the article don't even mention the subject, but other rappers. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMUSIC. WP:NMUSIC states "Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Otherwize clearly meets 3 of the criteria: #1, #7, and #9.
1. He has been featured in multiple documentaries (Where We're From and Freestyle: The Art of Rhyme), books (Words from Wize, The Come Up, The Way I Am, King Khule, Born a Villain), and articles (HipHopDX, Eminem.Pro, etc.). His prominence in the documentaries have nothing to do with Eminem, so they are not inherited notability.

7. In Where We're From, Otherwize is cited as the most prominent battle rapper in his region (LA) during this era. That has nothing to do with Eminem, so it's not inherited notability.

9. Otherwize won 1st Place and 3rd Place in major national music competitions (Rap Olympics '97 and Scribble Jam '99). Granted, one of those was defeating Eminem, but the other one was not, and they are still placings in national music competitions regardless of who he defeated. So this is not inherited notability.
He is also part of a notable crew called Project Blowed, which is also a subject of documentaries (This is the Life and Hip-Hop Evolution). He featured on the important Los Angeles underground albums Beneath the Surface and Cater to the DJ. Hierarchitectitiptitoploftical (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the general guidelines regarding notability and verifiability must still be met. To address your points:
1. For the sake of being thorough, I had a look at a selection of these references. I find fault with a number of them.
Words from Wize is a non-independent work.

The Come Up, as best I can tell, mentions Otherwize by name only once outside of a footnote. Am I wrong? This is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION.

In The Way I Am, I again find his name mentioned only once. (In fairness, I'm dealing with a non-searchable PDF, so I may have missed something; the reference lacks page number(s) — are you able to provide any?)

Three of the books you cite — King Khule, Born a Villain and Words from Wize — appear to be published by the same obscure, 'indie' publisher (Parker Pubs). None of the three books have ISBNs, and Parker Pubs doesn't even have a website. A Google search for "Words from Wize" Parker Pubs returns only 4 results, and one of them is this Wikipedia article. Looking at Parker Pubs's Linktree, it appears the only platform Parker Pubs makes these books available on is Lulu.com, which is a self-publishing house. Note WP:SELFPUBLISH says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Now, in fairness, it may be inaccurate to label these works as 'self-published'. But regardless, I can't help but somewhat question their value as sources in light of the above, even ignoring the fact Words from Wize is a non-independent work.

HipHopDX would appear to be a reliable source; I'm not particularly confident in saying the same of Eminem.Pro.
7. Can you find any other reliable sources that describe him in similar terms, e.g. "most prominent rapper (in LA)" or similar? Was this level of status sustained? If it were true (that he's "the most prominent battle rapper in [LA] during this era"), it's hard to imagine this fact wouldn't make its way into other reliable sources.

9. Fair enough. I accept those events meet criteria #9.

Overall, I still feel WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:GNG are not sufficiently met. GhostOfNoMeme 07:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HopalongCasualty. Looking at the article's existing references, and searching for others, I don't believe this figure meets WP:NOTABILITY. Many of the references, some from sources that do not seem reliable, are good examples of WP:NOTINHERITED — his attachment to Eminem does not establish his own notability, and almost enters WP:BLP1E territory as well. GhostOfNoMeme 14:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to address the fact that he meets 3 of the criteria in WP:NMUSIC? Hierarchitectitiptitoploftical (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I replied to your original message above re WP:NMUSIC. GhostOfNoMeme 07:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gsearch goes to a Reddit thread, then Discogs, neither of which is a good sign. Defeating Eminem is fine, but that's more of a trivial item than notable to get an entire article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to address the fact that he meets 3 of the criteria in WP:NMUSIC? Hierarchitectitiptitoploftical (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hierarch, please keep in mind WP:BLUDGEON. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:56, 19 July 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 11:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Capital Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Current sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Can't seem to find anything independent that really covers the fund in-depth right now. Imcdc Contact 11:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 11:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the firm does not appear to be the subject of substantial press coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was also unable to find significant coverage of this fund. Brandon (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. Charlie (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing that I can locate appears to meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:20, 17 July 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 11:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permian Investment Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I cannot find any independent sources that covers the fund specifically and fulfils WP:SIRS. There are some sources about the founder or about it launching but not really anything in-depth. Imcdc Contact 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the firm does not appear to be the subject of substantial press coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor hedge fund with no significant coverage in either the references or in searches. Brandon (talk) 07:38, 16 July 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. If an editor wants to work on a version of this article in Draft space, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wall (entrepreneur)

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

WP:BLP of a crypto entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all, and instead is just here to tangentially verify stray facts about a company without providing any evidence that any of those facts have anything in particular to do with Peter Wall.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative for tech entrepreneurs, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I complete understand your reservations about Peter Wall, and it was never my intention to sound like a Linkedin profile. Maybe I did not do due negligence when sourcing my references but the entire of the article was becuase he is a notable man both in Canadian media and in bitcoin. Can I nominate that we move the article to a draft while I source for other sources which do exist on the individual concerned and am sure when you searched online you will find that Peter Wall is extensively covered. LynnEditor.Nam (talk) 14:03, 1 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!} 05:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: current sourcing is Canada C3 Coast to Coast describing him as a team member (non-independent), a coworking space review mentioning his company but not him, two sources by him (non-independent), and two sources mentioning him joining and leaving as CEO without saying much about (providing significant coverage of) him, one short source about an IPO not mentioning him, and the bitcoin mining rush source which includes a quote from him and says basically nothing else. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as suggested: nominator is being unnecessarily harsh by calling it "not a free linkedin alternative" but I cannot find sources googling that are not associated with him, by him, or coverage that does not go into detail of him being in various positions.

Per Wikipedia:Notability, significant coverage (at least a paragraph specifically talking about him and who he is) from at least two reliable, independent (not affiliated with, employing, employed by, working together with him) sources is necessary for an article so that it can be written sufficiently independently and in-depth. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This isn't a notable person. This is about the best [66] and it's a PR item. A video journalist is just a "grunt behind the camera", to be blunt, and isn't notable. He's reported on things that happened, which is what videographers do. The crypto connection isn't helping notability. There is a real estate person in Vancouver that has coverage (with the same name), but it's not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Best source about this person I found is [67], and although it's reliable it's hardly WP:SIGCOV. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:40, 15 July 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!} 06:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewant Ram Danga

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOL. He contested the Rajasthan Assembly Elections in the year 2023 from Khinwsar Assembly constituency. In which he was defeated. Youknow? (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Rajasthan. Youknow? (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.livehindustan.com/assembly-elections/rajasthan-elections/constituency/khinwsar-110/

Check this news to verify that he contested the Rajasthan Assembly Elections in the year 2023 for Khinwasar Assembly Constituency. TejalGraphics (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TejalGraphics The point is that he contested but didn’t win. Politicians aren’t presumptively notable by virtue of their candidacy in an election. They have to, at least, win the notable position they contested for. If they don’t win and they pass the general notability guideline, then that’s a different case. Neither is the case for Danga. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:POL and WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet notability criteria Xoocit (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and farmer leader is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 14:54, 19 July 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. WP:G5, User:Smagzine. Favonian (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Williams (music producer)

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

Recreation of salted title at Sam Williams (record producer). Subject does not appear to be notable enough for standalone article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Music. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 15 July 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 Murder of Tupac Shakur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Davis (gangster)

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

Merge into Murder of Tupac Shakur. Textbook case of WP:BLP1E and a potential violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Most of the text in the article is about the murder and the various theories surrounding the possible perpetrator, not Davis. Davis hasn't been convicted or found guilty, and the coverage surrounding him is only in the context of the one event -- the murder of Tupac Shakur. Longhornsg (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Crime, and California. Longhornsg (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested seems like the best way to proceed here. He isn't notable as a "criminal" (he hasn't been tried yet, only arrested), or otherwise, only notable in relation to the Tupac murder. He was arrested and is in jail, pending the trial. Unsure if he might even pass criminal notability if and when he should be found guilty either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:40, 15 July 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!} 03:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulette Flint

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

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Many of the citations are primary as her employer is The Observer (Gladstone). Not seeing indepth third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. Also an orphan article. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although being an orphan isn't a reason for deletion, there's not enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, and none of the WP:AUTHOR criteria apply. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In a Newsbank database search (deeper and wider than Google) I found many articles by her but few about her, insufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO,WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF (in her capacity as a Gladstone regional historian). She seems to be a WP:RTM Gladstone regional journalist. Cabrils (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Raladic (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EGOT winners of Filipino descent

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

As it appears there is only one winner of EGOT of Filipino descent that fits the criteria, this list article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST. Nominations for awards alone are not typically enough for notability unless it's multiple per WP:ANYBIO. There are separate lists for winners/nominations for the 4 separate awards that make up EGOT for other countries, but all of those have a stricter inclusion criteria (not descent, but actually from the country) than just descent, so this list is wrong on the basis of being about EGOT, which is something WP:SPECIFIC and on the basis of being inconsistent regarding inclusion criteria compared to other separated out awards lists. Raladic (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator following below discussion with article creator, rescoping the article to address the issues I raised by renaming and removing descent based criteria for WP:CONSISTENT with other such (split out) lists. Raladic (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Film, Music, Television, Theatre, Awards, Entertainment, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::Delete: I think it's the best thing to delete this article rather than move because I mistook the title early. It wasn't for Lopez's wins but for Filipino descent as an equal. I believe "List of EGOT winners and nominees of Filipino descent" is a good title or you can rename it to "List of Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony winners and nominees of Filipino descent" as a whole list of accolades involving Filipino descent. As a matter of fact, it lacks the information of accolades or "winners and nominees" of Filipino descent like "List of Oscar winners and nominees of Filipino descent" or "List of Grammy winners and nominees of Filipino descent". So, I put that title as a whole list rather than separate. GeniusTaker (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I expanded on in the nomination, this list is inconsistent with other lists about the separated-out awards, which are not about descent, but about people from those countries.

So per WP:CONSISTENT, the current list fails this and should be reduced to either being a combined list, or 4 separate lists, but narrowed down to "List of Filipino X award winners and nominees", without the "descent" part. Raladic (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about "List of Filipino Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony award winners and nominees"? Was it good for you? Because I don't want that separate list but instead as a whole. It's very difficult for that. GeniusTaker (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that can work if you don't want to split it out, but you'd have to remove all people from the current lists that are only of descent.

Please strike your above "Delete" (by putting <del> and </del> around it) and I can withdraw the deletion nomination and we can speedy keep it and then move it to the right article title. Raladic (talk) 03:26, 15 July 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!} 03:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirad Solanki

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

There is a lot of refbombing in this orphan article. Whilst a lot of the coverage confirms he bought businesses and bars, none of this is indepth to meet WP:SIGCOV. Just a run of the mill businessman that doesn't meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, and England. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, while it states At the start of December in 2020, Solanki made headlines in both local newspapers and national newspapers where he gained recognition and publicity for applying to convert the ex-Wetherspoons bar, The New Baron of Hinckley, into a place of worship all the citations refer to syndicated articles by the same group of newspapers, with the same authors. Orange sticker (talk) 10:24, 18 July 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. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the Freedom of Nations!

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

There is little to indicate that this one-time 2024 event has notability. There is a lot of sourcing but little of it is reliable. Of the few RS that are cited, they make off-hand one-sentence mentions of this event or they explain the insignificance of the event. thena (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the cited sources may have a pro-Russia slant, but it also cites some directly critical sources under "criticism" and just looking it up on google I also found this bit of sigcov from a more generally anti-Western Turkish source; ONEEVENT is certainly a concern but it is also possible the sources required are simply spread out over many different languages that we only need more time and input to compile. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The European Council on Foreign Relations citation seems perfectly admissible for GNG in particular. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:SUSTAINED. Plenty of one-time conferences have gained sustained notability (e.g., the Bandung Conference), but this article does not qualify. - Amigao (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple sources available which indicates that it meets WP:GNG. The only issue with the article is WP:Toosoon but this will not affect the article because it is a multinational inter-party movement and it is not likely to die down soon, will rather gather more momentum. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its sources almost entirely fail the crucial point of "Independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. See WP:TASS for example. - Amigao (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think this event is sufficiently notable. It may be a little early to judge ref WP:SUSTAINED but, @Amigao it’s import to pay due regard to WP:NTEMP. I agree with @Thena and @Orchastrattor that the references are poor and fall short of the standard described by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I’ve done some cursory research and there are some western perspectives available that could compliment the pro-Russian sources currently in the article. (NB - Orchastrattor is being generous when they say. ‘May have’)

TLDR/ Improve references. Too narrow. Adamfamousman (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's too early to judge WP:SUSTAINED then it's WP:TOOSOON for this article to exist. - Amigao (talk) 12:30, 8 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!} 21:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG, and I believe it is notable enough. Brat Forelli🦊 22:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Amigao. Also I can't help but be suspicious when a new user just creates an article as their first edit MaskedSinger (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely tendentious rationale, just about every worthwhile article I've ever seen on AFC has come from a brand-new account or an IP. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft pending development of sources demonstrating sustained notability. BD2412 T 01:41, 15 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) 02:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable conference. Maybe this event will start getting retrospective news coverage that proves it's notable, but I doubt it. Either way, there isn't enough coverage at the present moment to justify a page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:13, 22 July 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!} 00:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too Lost (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Still unclear if there's enough independent coverage for WP:NCORP.

Previous AfD was speedied per the author's request. Also speedied for copyvio Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Lost, also deleted under G12 KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the NCORP sourcing criteria as most of the sources are routine announcements, trade publications or brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, two previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources fail WP:NCORP as WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:TRADES publications or WP:ORGTRIV mentions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Just to add, the primary difference in sourcing between this version and the previously deleted version is the addition of several PR announcements, none of which can be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:03, 16 July 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) Sohom (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Matthew Crooks

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Only notable for one crime, nothing else. Can be covered enough in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. No need for an article, and honestly needs to not have an article to respect our policies on recently deceased persons given the fact that most of what exists about him is speculation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to withdraw but I was not fast enough. I thought TW would show prior AfD but it did not do so. Please feel free to delete this page under G6 if possible. Apologies for the trouble. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep & close article has already been AfD'd like 3 times, all of which have been closed. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:44, 15 July 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!} 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mott family murders

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

Fails NEVENT. All sources are from the week this happened, no follow up, failing WP:SUSTAINED. In addition, familicides are by far the most common kind of mass murder and tend to receive the least coverage, so the odds that this will receive any kind of retrospective coverage when coverage has ceased, especially since it's been two years with nothing, is slim to none. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Alaska. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even without WP:CRYSTALing, this has barely been mentioned and therefore fails WP:GNG, and it's nowhere near having the lasting consequences needed for WP:NEVENT. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sustained coverage or significant long-term effects. "Crime happened" does not constitute a notable event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:57, 21 July 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!} 03:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristofer Karlsson

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. The links provided are all primary. Could not find third party coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, Sweden, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: No independent sources available. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)~~ Keep: After Julle's additions, enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. (I wonder how many articles are deleted because of wrong language settings) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn’t meet WP:GNG, no reliable references, the author should consider seeking more references, a lot is written on the article but nothing to show or prove notability.Madeforall1 (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article and added references from Yle, Vestmanlands Läns Tidning, sv:Enköpings-Posten. Some of these are shorter news pieces, but a couple of them have more substance. /Julle (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Alien333 and Madeforall1 in case you want to take another look. These sources were a bit difficult to locate if one doesn't speak Swedish (and in a couple of cases required access to newspaper archive to find them). /Julle (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources from Julle 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Did a quick Google Translate on the snippet from the YLE source added, it seems to talk about this person. I'll assume the others are of a similar quality, we have enough for a basic article anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julles additions AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:26, 18 July 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 page move on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Geeks Scotland

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

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

Fails WP:ORG. 3 of the 4 sources are dead. The remaining source [68] is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Computing, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources available. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added archived versions of the broken links. There are four good references, including two from mainstream newspapers. The article should be moved to Girl Geek Scotland, the organization's correct name.
Keep — clearly, the article needs a rewrite and the inclusion of additional references. However, as per WP:CONTN and WP:NPOSSIBLE, the current state of the article has no bearing on its notability. Reliable and independent sources do exist: I am able to find a decent number of them. I see coverage in The Scotsman, Holyrood, BBC, City A.M., The Independent, and others. I think there is enough to establish notability. GhostOfNoMeme 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Move to Girl Geek Scotland which is the organisation's correct name. GhostOfNoMeme 05:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep found this on The Guardian[69], combined with the sources the wikipedians afore spoke about, should be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and, subsequently, WP:ORGCRIT. However, when saying “I found an article on BBC”, please, add a link as well. That would help discussion to move quicker, as it would be easier to verify the arguments. Vorann Gencov (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above Guardian RS article source stating this is a nonprofit organisation, then basic GNG applies per WP:NONPROFIT, and the subject very much appears to meet that notability level. ResonantDis_tortion 22:19, 17 July 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 per WP:SNOW. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump raised fist photographs

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Should be merged to the above mentioned article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, and United States of America. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the photos are indeed directly related to the assassination attempt, but have found distinct commentary, interpretation, and coverage as something more. WP:DROPTHESTICK on these deletion noms, please. BarntToust (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable given the amount of commentary on this image specifically. While it is a picture of the assassination attempt, it has gotten a lot of commentary based on it's use and composition. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Csg95 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep frivoulous nomination. ND61F (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, also per @BarntToust can we please Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cleary a separate notable topic with wide coverage of the photos and not the actual attempt to kill past and potentially future President of the USA. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This certainly warrants its own section on the original article, but not its own article. SlyAceZeta (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Patently false, since notable photographs have their own articles, not some nonsense concept of just being a subsection for the broader topic daruda (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Astropulse (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. All of the relevant information is covered there in a few concise paragraphs. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, it's better to keep topics that provide each other context in the same article when possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is / was widely reported on by a number of notable media outlets and extremely popular on social media. Also suggest we get a non-cropped version at low resolution to illustrate the article. User:WoodElf 00:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete it. This serves no purpose other than to elevate Trump as some kind of tough guy. Does Reagan have a dedicated article about the aftermath? Ridiculous. 32.220.216.27 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Biased IP user with a low IQ take eh? not surprised. the point isn't trump, the point is the photograph. and 'raising the flag on iwo jima'/ ground zero both have articles. daruda (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Make no further comments on people's IQs please. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's maintain WP:NPOV when providing reasons for deletion. User:WoodElf 01:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- this IP user does not seem to be giving a proper train of thought for any reason. They seem to be bringing aftermath of Reagan into this, and that is not really an "iconic, widely-discussed and notable" photograph sort-of-thing. This non-argument full of a personal opinion makes no sense to me. BarntToust (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the photographs have distinct and substantial commentary Scu ba (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP since this is a rather obvious example of a notable photograph. No idea why @LilianaUwU nominated this for deletion. Going through the user's profile, this initiative to delete this photograph seems to arise out of a rather partisan outlook towards Trump rather than an objective understanding of articles about notable photographs daruda (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This photograph fulfills the nessicary criteria for use and an article beyond a context. I'll have to agree personally on how it seems the nominator has a personal bias, but I should not want to say anything definitive, like you, with the key absolving word "seems" making this only an observation, not an accusation. BarntToust (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- exactly, I do not like Trump nor do I agree with practically anything of his, but that does not take away from the fact that this photo is incredibly important and will go down in the history books. 174.26.132.119 (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dadude sandstorm: Please assume good faith and don't cast aspersions about alleged bias. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't care less about who the dude in the picture was. If it was Biden, I'd have the same reasoning. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cleary a separate notable topic with wide coverage Bloger (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to Keep, as per the countless keep votes above me, a historic photo. Politely and respectfully speaking, the OP's participation history leaves me and other people thinking about the vexatious component to this particular nomination! User:Historyexpert2 — Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Politely and respectfully speaking" doesn't automatically make your aspersions polite and respectful. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic photographs such as this usually warrant their own articles. With the amount of attention this photo in particular is receiving, both from supporters of Trump and the media, I believe the article is appropriate. NorthropChicken (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep: Photograph has substantial coverage as an image, separate from the event it depicts. Seems comparable to the Trump's mugshot, in which there are separate articles covering his arraignment and the mugshot as an image. --CamAnders (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading down this discussion, you are the first person so far to actually address what a deletion discussion should address, which is depths and provenances of sources. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Public image of Donald Trump or Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. This is not really an independent subject, and frankly it's way too soon to know if there will be any lasting legacy for these photos. This seems to be a very redundant content fork of a subject that can be adequately covered in either of the other articles. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unsure why user wanted to delete this photo. It's already received enough news coverage to warrant its own page. Twinbros04 (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to admit, there comes a point that in a dire context like this, it can never be too soon to say that something coming from a historic event is going to have an impact. Nobody would say this, much less the entire article's worth, if it were not impactful meaningfully. Trump would never had a mugshot to hold its own article had he not engaged in criminally questionable activity, its own thing as well. same logic. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:282D:933B:D824:B63 (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Mug shot of Donald Trump is very similar to the image of Trump with his fist raised in terms of spread & use, and that page was created the day after the mugshot was taken. It appears that an image (especially of Trump) can be called 'iconic' or 'noteworthy' this quickly in this day & age. I can't think of a reason why that page gets to stay up but Trump's raised fist gets taken down. jan Janko (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , a pretty significant photo in itself, does deserve to have an article about it itself Waleed (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to think that it is a rather iconic picture. I can't really snow close/withdraw with so many people wanting to merge, though. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 4 wanting it not its own article, opposed to 15 for. Remember, this isn't a majority vote, but rather a test of logic. Logic trumps all. BarntToust (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTE: not "Trump" like the subject of the photo. trumps as in logic is better than majority. Consensus seems to be then, that it is iconic, subject of coverage, and worthy of an article based by the means for having one. Maybe wait for other editors to jump on? The logic won't change, but maybe SNOW conditions will. BarntToust (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know it's not a majority thing, but even then, that's still a rather small sample size for this many merge/delete !votes. I can't snow close now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, to wait for other editors to jump on means to wait. Then things may or may not change for SNOW. BarntToust (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And I wouldn’t call maybe four people “so many”, just saying. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And @LilianaUwU you really shouldn’t close anyway. I’m pretty sure you’re considered involved because you were the original nominator. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that bar you from closing? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically I could, if I withdrew and the outcome was unanimous. But that's not the case. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. - Sebbog13 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no doubt the main iconic photo will forever linger in American politics and history. It well deserves its own article. The assassination attempt will have a big effect on the November election, and the images Vucci took symbolise it somewhat. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we also have articles on the possibly less noteworthy mugshot of Donald Trump from last year. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for obvious reasons. It's a notorious and powerful photograph. Devann (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not everything is a fork that has to be merged into a bigger article. Sometimes a topic is notable enough to have its own article, even if it falls under the umbrella of a broader event. This is clearly the case here. The photo clearly meets GNG by itself — no question about that — so there should be no issue WP:SPLITTING it from the main article. I have yet to see any policy-based arguments as to why this should be merged. C F A 💬 03:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The detailed, significant coverage of this photo in many reliable sources shows that this photo is already notable, and additional coverage in reliable sources is highly likely in days, weeks, months and years to come. If coverage unexpectedly fizzles out, then we can reconsider in a year or two. Cullen328 (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Second person to actually address sourcing. Brownie points! ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable images. Bruxton (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE This should just all be included in the other article. The Photo-op in front of the church, for instance, is an all-inclusive article about the event, not just the photos taken. CNC33 (. . .talk) 04:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a great point actually, did not consider this. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. It's snowing in here. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 04:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. --04:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The subject is already notable. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PAGEDECIDE do not apply, since this photo has significant commentary in numerous news articles, and it would be unwieldy to cram it all in the main page, as well as carrying WP:DUE concerns. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage of the photos to justify an article at this stage. Aircorn (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly deserves its own article Epic.Rap.Battles.ofhistoryfan42 (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think the photo has potential to remain iconic enough to have its own page, but its impact has yet to be seen. I think it's simply too soon for it to warrant its own article. Unlike the Mug shot of Donald Trump page, it does not represent a presidential first or anything like that. As is, I think the blurb in the main article suffices. However, I think it should be discussed again if the assassination attempt has a profound impact on the outcome of the election. Pac-Man PHD (talk)
Keep. Vucci's photographs meet WP:GNG. Press: The Washington Post [70], The Atlantic [71], Deutsche Welle [72], The Australian [73], Politico [74], The Atlanta Journal-Constitution [75], Hindustan Times [76]. Commentary: The Washington Post [77], The New Yorker [78], India Today [79], The Spectator [80]. Levivich (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging this much commentary about the photographs to the assassination attempt article would be WP:UNDUE for that article. Levivich (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sixth person to actually address sourcing. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There's a ton in the article, there always has been. Levivich (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: WP:TOOSOON. It's been a day guys, come on. This is wayyy too soon to call an image iconic. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 06:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very recent photography with a substantial commentary from RS --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: can be contained in assassination attempt article.Jack Upland (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Photo is notable. As an Australian, even I can appreciate its notability. —Mjks28 (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump: Does this warrant it's own article? The article could be added in the main one. Lordseriouspig 07:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Iconic images deserve to have their own article on Wikipedia. So I'm going to nominate this as "Keep". It can also be merged too, but I think this article should be kept. As of anyone living around anywhere around earth, not just the US, but other countries, it's recognised as well. It's been going everywhere around the news in Australia, this image is also viral in Australia too. So as an Australian, I see this as "keep". PEPSI697 (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an iconic image that may well be the defining image of the election and is covered by enough RS's. But I will say to the nominator that if you want this merged, AFD is the wrong place for it. You probably want WP:PM for that. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snowball clause 174.92.25.207 (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per LilianaUwU. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have stated the image itself is notable on its own. It's being widely circulated and is looking to be the most important photograph taken this year (perhaps for many years). It's a defining image of this event. — Czello ^(music) 09:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as complete and unencyclopedic trivia. Merely a fork of the parent article. Obviously not all of it would need to be carried over. Why are so many newish account attracted to this AfD. ——Serial Number 54129 09:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been happening this way at AFD for over 2 decades, and is one reason that we have {{notavote}}. There's no ballot and this isn't a vote, but people think that it is and want to stuff it. Sad to say, there are a lot of comments above that are just noise and of no use to a closing administrator, because they do not show at all how Wikipedia deletion policy applies, one way or the other, to the question at hand. Some people have addressed sourcing and notability, though, which is exactly what a closing administrator needs. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BarntToust Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep source cited in the article clearly demonstrate independent notability to the incident. Juxlos (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect &/or Merge to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (&/or subsequent articles). Not yet independently notable. Suggest that Keep !votes should provide links to sustained coverage in multiple secondary, independent sources which are primarily about the article subject; per WP:THREE. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My vote lists 11. Levivich (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, aye, aye, and aw'. And yet, wee man; WP:SUSTAINED. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BarntToust and others. The photographs are a separate and notable topic. They enjoy widespread coverage in numerous reliable sources. Clearly notable and deserving of their own article. GhostOfNoMeme 11:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was this source (albeit not in our article) that convinced me. —Cryptic 11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — for now While my personal view is that this article should be merged to the one on the public image of Trump, and to be clear I also think it would have been better to start coverage of the whole incident at Trump’s article, I believe it is still covered by BREAKING. With current events, we often try to avoid rapidly creating articles about things before notability is established (and it is a hard line to CRYSTALBALL the importance of these photos that are indeed falling out of the new cycle but could make a comeback).
But if such articles do get created, we try to avoid rapidly deleting them (unless they clearly qualify for speedy) — editors will have centred their coverage efforts at the talk page and displacing that is not helpful in the context of current events. So, for now, just keep it as a matter of process, and revisit AfD at a better time, per NORUSH. Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, likely notable given the amount of sources specifically on the photograph (e.g. those mentioned by Levivich), although WP:TOOSOON might come into play. Not opposed to a later renomination once the dust settles, if the notability happens to not be WP:SUSTAINED. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are aspects of this topic that can't be covered anywhere else, such as the this-photograph-as-a-work-of-photography aspect, as this is a significant work for photography as a field; and clearly, dealing with that in an article about the assassination attempt or Trump's public image is impossible.—Alalch E. 12:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:17, 15 July 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] ttp://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/page_cache/in/greshornish_forestry.htm

[1]