Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 August 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 06	August 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Céphas Bansah

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

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

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

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

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

-StellarHalo (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

21st Asianet Film Awards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakri pakohi

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Ingoldsby

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

Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Profire Energy

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Utah. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw. I have found significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Legends of Skyfall

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

I could not find coverage for either the series or any of its individual books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Walls Came Tumbling Down (Wilson book)

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

No sigcov found. Redirect to author Robert Anton Wilson?

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgames

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

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

List of villains in VR Troopers

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the "Major Villains" to the appropriate section of List of VR Troopers characters. As said in the nomination, that list is, itself, devoid of reliable sources and could potentially eventually be merged into the main VR Troopers article, but for now, condensing it down to a single character list would be the appropriate first step in figuring out the best way to present the information. Everything beyond the "Major Villains" section are just minor characters and one shot "Monsters of the Week", so should not be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the sofa

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.Jontesta (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who robots

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuleap

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Steve Sarvi

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie

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

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

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

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

Delete It is generally unwise to assume that a film that is still in production will be notable when/if it is publicly released. In particular, the WP:NFF guidelines state: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." This does not seem to be the case. It also states: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines..." I think it is clear that these criteria have not been met in this case. Of course the editors can retain a draft or the article could be draftified, but it is not suitable for main space. Lamona (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gabby's Dollhouse#Film as an WP:ATD. I think this is a fair compromise between Lamona and Mushy Yank. Overall, though, I have to agree with Lamona and the nomination that this doesn't really meet WP:NFF due to a lack of significant coverage. Stating that the film is live-action and animation and that the live action piece is in progress alone does not satisfy the NFF requirements. We have three references (expanded here to include publisher): Ref 1,^[1] Ref 2,^[2], and Ref 3.^[3] Refs 1 and 3 offer significant coverage; however, they are not of the production, just the announcement of the project. They are also on the same date and from the same company, and the way they are structured, these are really reports based off the same industry announcement, both of which go against WP:INDEPENDENT (same company alone, they're probably OK given different editorial structures, but the nature of the "report" reduces the relevance.) Reference 2 does not WP:VERIFY the information that it claims, as the production is not actually listed. I checked the archives, and they do not help, either. (See archives on 10, 17, 21, and 23 July, respectively. I cannot get them to display, but perhaps someone else can?) The problem with this site is that it is formatted in a way that getting verifiable archives is next to impossible. Maybe archive.today would work, but it doesn't have any entries. Anyway, I still WP:AGF that the information was once there given the listed access date. The problem remains that even if it was there, it would not provide any WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. Basing this off the current entries, it provided a simple fact verification of the start date, and did not provide any prose reporting on this production, failing the significant coverage piece needed to meet NFF. A list of facts is good to verify information, but not to establish notability. -2pou (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ McClintock, Pamela (25 April 2024). "Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie to Get the Big-Screen Treatment in 2025". The Hollywood Reporter. Penske Media Corporation.
^ "In Production - Creative BC". Creative BC. July 10, 2024. Retrieved July 10, 2024.
^ Anthony D'Alessandro (April 25, 2024). "DreamWorks Animation Dates Big Screen Version Of Netflix Streaming Series Gabby's Dollhouse For Fall 2025". Deadline Hollywood. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved April 25, 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Reviews presented show the page can be retained. Add the 1 paragraph in Observador (linked above by Waxworker) https://observador.pt/2021/03/17/nao-e-so-em-civilization-vi-ha-mais-4-series-de-videojogos-onde-pode-controlar-portugal/ ; a 5-page article dedicated to the game: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235915242_Um_estudo_das_dinamicas_de_apropriacao_do_jogo_Portugal_1111_-_A_Conquista_de_Soure_em_contexto_escolar and I think that should be enough. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Observador source is a list with a few sentences about the game. SBGames, the paper's publisher, is the "Simpósio Brasileiro de Jogos e Entretenimento Digital", not sure that is enough. IgelRM (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marlinspike Hall

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BioSense

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankush Hazra filmography

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

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

Speedy delete per G5 - only substantial contributions are by Halud Foressa socks. Jdcomix (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boketo Media

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

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

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

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

Coronation Park (Sunyani, Ghana)

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

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

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

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

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

Artistic gymnastics at the Summer Olympics

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

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

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

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

Martha Mbugua

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources used to establish notability need to meet all three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of Success

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm at a loss as for what to do with this article, as despite the fact it has been reprinted dozens of times over a nearly 100 year period and has many many mentions everywhere I am unable to find any useful significant discussion on it besides the library journal piece from 2008. It seems to have many different titles and was not initially a book? There are thousands of mentions of it but I can't find any sigcov even though I feel like it has to exist, just brief mentions in the context of his career or just saying what the book says with no discussion. This is one of those self help business books, perhaps one of the first big ones, and there's a high likelihood much of what the author said is false. I really just want to resolve the notability tag. If, somehow, there are no additional useful sources, redirect to author Napoleon Hill#The Law of Success. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony villains

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mifflin, Indiana

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interestingly, there is a sign there that says "Welcome to Mifflin" [5] which was added sometime between 2007 and 2023. The restaurant that likely put it up claim the area is "Still known as Mifflin" [6] and there appears to be an article about Mifflin. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, there is an article from February 2010 from the Clarion News. Newspapers.com access for Wikimedia users seems to be down but here it is.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That article alone would suggest a WP:GEOLAND pass. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WikiBhasha

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

J. C. France

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/J. C. France

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

This might fail WP:NMOTORSPORT — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Kitab-Verlag

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

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

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

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

List of Zenless Zone Zero characters

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

WP:Gamecruft, in-universe list IgelRM (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. IgelRM (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Wikipedia is not FANDOM, and this would need a total rewrite to be encyclopedic and less of a game guide. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Bozdağ

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

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

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

Dread Jesus

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

I couldn't find anything that discusses this book in depth. It's cited in a few places, but nothing discussing it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Religion, and Jamaica. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maineartists (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dee

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

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

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

Murder of Otávio Jordão da Silva

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Although tabloid, [7], that is lasting! Sources are fine in the article, covers the events, you have multiple different YouTube videos which show lasting like this one [8], there are posts on Facebook and TikTok about this, Twitter [9], etc. Those few bits years later, So ye, Keep for me, thanks. Govvy (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tabloid doesn't help, the YouTube videos don't help, social media posts definitely do not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant incident with fair coverage Ecpiandy (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP. Redundant.

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Singapore. FOARP (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reykjavík International School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaning Weak keep. The weekly paper Reykjavík had a couple of stories regarding the founding of the school (Nýr einkaskóli í undirbúningi and Tókst ekki hjá Reykjavík). This is another story from Morgunblaðið. Also seems to have been known as Alþjóðaskólinn í Reykjavík.

Alvaldi (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cubana de Aviación destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Cuba. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Arben

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

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

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

Bank of Carmel

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

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

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

Keep - The Bank of Carmel is connected with artist Paul Whitman who constructed two bas reliefs for the front of the Bank of Carmel building. The bank article links to Thomas Albert Work, Charles O. Goold, and Barnet J. Segal , who were important directors for the building. The Art Deco style of the building is a significant historical aspect. The city of Carmel has recognized the building as an important historical site in there Downtown Conservation District Historic Property Survey. Secondary sources by Kent Seavey and Sharron Lee Hale (see edit request) show WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILDING. The building is notable as a result of its historic, social, and architectural importance. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Seavey, how significant is the coverage? The citation in the article is to a single page, and the link provided shows that this page is just a photo & caption in a book of photos. Axad12 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about size of coverage but about what is significant. The Kent Seavey book gives a good overview of Bank of Carmel, how it looked before it has been turned into a retail store, its relationship to Barnet J. Segal and artist Paul Whitman. It is an important source to show the historical important of the building. I've added a second source in an edit request on the talk page. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to be clear, when you say "good overview" you mean a single photo and caption?

Do we assume therefore that, in your opinion, every property with a photograph in that book satisfies WP:NBUILDING? Or, indeed, every property that has ever appeared in a captioned photograph in any book? Axad12 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than a photo and a caption. Under the photo is a full, multi-sentence description with names, dates, and info on the bank. WP:GNG's "significant coverage" does not require a volume of words. It can also mean the quality of the words. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a captioned photo in a local picture book. However, I do agree with you when you say that to you that qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. Axad12 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you changed your comment - you deleted the bit that said "To me that is WP:SIGCOV". Why did you delete that bit? Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, please, multiple editors have explained to you multiple times that a photograph or a photo caption does not count as SIGCOV nor contributes to notability criteria. It might be ok to use to back up a fact, but that's it. Do you not remember reading or hearing this advice in the past? Netherzone (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are allowed to make changes. The topic of WP:GNG is important in relation to WP:SIGCOV. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you still say Seavey counts as SIGCOV? Axad12 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greghenderson2006:, all of those names are biography articles in your walled garden in Carmel/Pebble Beach/Monterey/California topic area. Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the exact same thought earlier this morning - yet another walled garden. Probably many of these articles can be merged or redirected, but this is yet another big clean up project. It may be best waiting a week or two, and tackling it in an organized way, identifying key articles are indisputably notable that might be appropriate merge/redirect targets. Thoughts? Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To above comments: Please read the follwoing two articles:
Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

Criticism of Wikipedia
I think they are key here as it covers the topic of deleting articles in Wikipedia, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven policy application. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if only there wasn't so much excessive rule-making, e.g. UPE, COI, GNG, SIGCOV, etc., etc. Axad12 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't yet looked into all of the sources, but at least half of the current ones are press releases, they are not even "trivial coverage", they are press-release based PR announcements placed in newspapers, not SIGCOV. See Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Press_releases for more information. Netherzone (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call press releases are actually important pieces of primary source information that tells a story and is part of the history! For example, "Carmel Notes". Oakland Tribune. Oakland, California. 14 Oct 1923. p. 25. Retrieved 2022-05-24, says "Carmel's new bank was the first and only one the city has had." This indicates it was the first bank in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, which is significant. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are press releases. Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't tell if the article is supposed to be about the short-lived bank or the building. If it's about the bank, it fails the WP:NCORP test of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS, and if it's about the building, which is not on any historic registers that carry presumed notability, it fails WP:NBUILD, which calls for "significant in-depth coverage." What's offered here is a series of primary sources, trivial local newspaper mentions, and unreliable sources like Arcadia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom that this is part of the Carmel WP:Walled garden, yet another run of the mill local building that is not on the NRHP, thus failing WP:BUILD. I am also in agreement with Dclemens1971 that as a bank it does not meet WP:NCORP criteria for SIRS & SIGCOV. The creator still does not seem to understand that notability is not inherited from allegedly "notable" people associated with the structure. What we have in terms of sourcing is: 1) a nomination form by the Parks & Recreation (primary source); 2) a press-release printed in a newspaper (primary source); 3) another press release (primary source), 4) another press release (primary source); 5) a photo and photo caption in a tourist-trade book published by a marginal publisher (Arcadia) whose reliability is questionable (not SIGCOV and low-quality source); 6) a short piece without a by-line in the hyper-local weekly tabloid, The Pine Cone; 7) a meeting agenda (primary source, really wondering why this is even included?); 8) a 404 dead link in The Pine Cone (hyper local weekly tabloid); 9) an advertisement in The Pine Cone (WTF?); 10) a photo and caption in a report by the City of Carmel (primary source). None of this contributes to the notability of the bank as a business nor the building, therefore also fails WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of IrAero destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Russia. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Momotenko Levitsky

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ironically, given that I was the editor who previously nominated this article for AfD discussion, I believe it should be retained. Subject meets criteria 5 (the Gramophone review of the recent Ondine release calls it the subject's "major-label debut")[10] and 11 of WP:MUSICBIO, as well as criterion 3 of WP:ANYBIO. However, I do agree that a lot of the self-promotional language needs to be cut. But that does not warrant deletion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here are the sources in question:

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

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

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

Jay Hunter (actor)

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

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

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

Advokatfirman Vinge

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Europe, and Sweden. Niashervin (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Gilbert Pickard

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

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

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

Namdhari Movement

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

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

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

YNAB

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

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, included sources are mostly regurgitated PR or reviews of the service or app, not in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Capital

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

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, none of the included sources meet the criteria. They are a mixture of sources that rely entirely on interviews/information provided by the company/execs or regurgitated PR, none include in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitwise

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

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, included sources are mostly regurgitated PR or reviews of the app, not in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (As author.) WP:CORPDEPTH, which the nominator linked to, says, Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. (emphasis mine) Some of the "reviews" of the app cited here are published by very reputable sources like The Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, and The Guardian. It's even discussed in a published book. I see no reason why we'd need independent notability of the parent company that owns the app, when the app itself is a pretty clear GNG pass. Reliable sources that review the product are still reliable sources. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 13:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft

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

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Whilst "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been", I have been unable to find any reliable sources talking about a list of preserved (McDonnell) Douglas aircraft. I have been unable to find reliable significant coverage on both topics. Sources do exist (only for individual entries) albeit only talking about the individual entries, not about the topic in general –List of preserved (McDonnell) Douglas Aircraft–.

I have also nominated <List of preserved Douglas aircraft> since both topics are similar enough as they both cover preserved aircraft and were manufactured by similar companies, whilst also sharing the same issues. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and United States of America. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is some discussion of Douglas/McDonnell Douglas aircraft as objects of preservation in Holden (The Douglas DC-3) and Francillon (McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920, volumes 1 and 2. Furthermore, since the list entries are not generally independently notable, these lists fulfill criterion 1 (information) of WP:LISTPURP, and under WP:NLIST, "[l]ists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The East Is Blue

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

This is an article on an essay in a book which itself does not have an article. In all fairness the book itself is notable but no one bothered to write an article on it where I would typically suggest something like this be merged. The essay has a few newspaper articles taking note of it (still mostly in the context of the book, and largely before the book released, but outside of the times piece they mostly read as press release adjacent and are very short. I think the times piece is fine but it's the only thing), and nothing else except passing non-sigcov mentions, not enough for gng. Redirect to Salman Rushdie? Unless someone wants to write an article on the book? I probably would if this was about any other topic. I'm not particularly strong on delete but I feel this is a strange situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Asia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Asia, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction, where the vast majority of his essays don't have articles. fa:شرق_غمگین_است doesn't demonstrate notability either. It's been 20 years since article creation. It's not like WP is losing anything by removing this two-sentence this-essay-exists stub. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/09porn.htm (https://www.news24.com/news24/rushdie-praises-porn-20040808) https://reason.com/2004/08/10/the-salacious-verses/ ; mentioned in https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ed-porn01sep01-story.html, https://wwd.com/feature/exposing-the-exposed-701043-1930810/ ; at the very least redirect to Salman_Rushdie#Essays_and_nonfiction -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources provide SIGCOV of the essay itself. Rediff, News24, Reason, and LA Times have a quote from the essay and some information about Rushdie and/or the book. WWD only provides a sentence about the essay. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW there was a source on... newspapers.com I think, that I thought looked like sigcov, so that would make two, but this is an essay in a book and not the actual book so I don't think NBOOK rules apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadabam's Hospitals

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

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. Existing sourcing simply regurgitates announcements and PR and has no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Medicine, and India. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Koprna

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

Korpna has never played in a professional level and his career lasted a total of 621 minutes. Normally, there is a good chance notability would spark for such young footballers, but this article lacks sufficient source to meet WP:GNG. My Google searches did not show any significant coverage of Korpna. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete On the books for the biggest club in Slovakia, however that's kind of meaningless unless something amazing happens with his career. He could go nowhere. If he does make it some day, it can always be recreated. Govvy (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan grave necrophilia hoax

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

Not every hoax requires its own standalone WP page. To qualify, it must meet the NEVENT, which states that the events including hoaxes should have WP:PERSISTENCE / significant coverage and demonstrate lasting significance or impact, which is not the case here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of hoaxes.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The hoax pretty much spread like wildfire, and has PERSISTENTLY BEEN reported in many articles, including reputable ones like Dawn.

Here are some sources that falsely report this rumour:

Firstpost (which you argued for its reliability once) - https://www.firstpost.com/world/parents-are-locking-their-daughters-graves-in-pakistan-but-why-12516002.html/amp

Associated News International - https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/pakistani-parents-lock-daughters-graves-to-avoid-rape20230429124712

Times of India - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spotlight/web-stories/why-are-people-locking-up-womens-graves-in-pakistan/photostory/99838682.cms

News sources that report the case being debunked and false:

The Express Tribune - https://tribune.com.pk/story/2414436/indian-media-spreads-fake-padlocked-grave-image-to-discredit-pakistan?amp=1

Dawn- https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1750493

NDTV- https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/story-on-pictures-of-padlock-in-pakistan-incorrect-grave-from-hyderabad-3990281/amp/1

WION- https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/why-are-parents-locking-their-daughters-graves-in-pakistan-587324/amp

ALT News- https://www.altnews.in/media-misreport-viral-photo-of-grave-with-iron-grille-is-from-hyderabad-not-pakistan/

India TV News- https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/news/india/the-truth-behind-graveyard-with-padlock-story-pakistan-hyderabad-video-photos-waris-pathan-latest-updates-2023-05-01-868273 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualVagabond, OK but you're still missing the point. As mentioned earlier, this coverage does not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Also Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and WP:WIDESPREAD states Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been picked up by reputable sources, so I’d say it pretty much is notable. Not to mention that this topic is brought up quite a bit, even warranting an article that was made about it only a few weeks ago:

https://www.boomlive.in/amp/fast-check/viral-picture-grave-locked-pakistan-parents-necrophilia-daughter-claim-online-25859 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catchment area (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. De-prodded (correctly) by @GB fan: with edit summary "remove PROD, was previously PRODed 20:13, 10 June 2014‎‎‎ and later removed, must go to WP:AFD". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vedaant Madhavan

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

Fails WP:BIO & WP:NSPORT. This athlete is not notable yet, did not win any notable championship and fails Wikipedia guidelines for athlete and biography. Drat8sub (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Drat8sub (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Menon

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:FILMMAKER. He's written and sung songs for what appear to be notable films, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. I can't find significant coverage of him in reliable, secondary English or Malayalam sources (അങ്കിത് മേനോൻ). The best coverage of him I could find in a RS was in Malayala Manorama: this interview (primary source) and this article about his music for a film. The rest is passing mentions. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Wikishovel (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, India, and Kerala. Wikishovel (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Sources given are either primary or unreliable (WP:TOI). The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Campbell (singer)

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

Declined A7. Singer does not seem notable enough for a standalone article. An online search mostly shows results of a musician from Chicago who is unrelated to the subject of the article in question. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kentucky. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited from notable groups he has been in, and I see nothing significant in reliable sources to support him having his own article. Coverage appears to be dropping his name in the context of these groups. Maybe redirect to The Dapper Dans. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Sindan

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

Examining the sources The article appears to push a caste-POV rather than provide clear information about the military conflict. From John F. Richards' source, there is only a single line about the conflict, which is part of a larger table listing numerous minor conflicts. This brief mention does not reference Arabs, Abbasids, or Sindh; it simply notes that a commander named Bhoja expelled a Muslim garrison from a place called Sindan in 839. There is no mention of caste, Abbasids, or Arabs in this reference. The article's author cites Richards inaccurately (Richards didn't cover the area which the author cited).

The sources by H.C. Ray and Al-Baladhuri fall under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS, and K.M. Munshi's "Glory That Was Gurjara Desa" praises the Gurjar caste without describing the conflict in depth or mentioning the Abbasids or Sindh province (not even the year). Likewise, R.C. Majumdar, Praful Kartha, and Hem Chandra Ray do not mention a conflict in Sindhan between the Abbasids and the Rajput confederacy. The assumption that the Muslims defeated by Bhoja in 839 were Abbasids and that Sindh was a Caliphal province is clearly original research and synthesis of sources.

None of the sections accurately describe the "conquest"; they discuss unrelated events, and the lack of in-depth coverage makes it clear that the article fails WP:GNG. Only about 5% of the article covers the respective event, and that is based on a single line by J.F. Richards. The author has created similar articles that contain original research and caste POV pushing. The context can be found in the article List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, and none of the listed conflicts in that article have enough notability to warrant a separate article. Fails WP:GNG, and the article is a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Saudi Arabia, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closer:

Please review the background and edit history of the voters (whether they are for "keep" or "delete"). Articles related to Indian history, especially those concerning wars, battles, and sieges, are often sensitive and have been subject to active meatpuppetry for a long time. Kindly disregard comments from active POV pushers, as I discovered this article through the contributions of one.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers

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

Think this fails WP:NLIST, tried to add sources for everything but found that difficult. Most of these I've just sourced to photos of the graves. Only mentions in news media are usually passing mentions in obits. Couldn't find any sources talking about them as a group. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Lists. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala

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

No reliable sources (WP:RS) mention a "Battle of Bhutala," nor do any of the references cited in the article. The article lacks notability, as even the authors Srivastav Ashoka and Somani Ram Vallabh are unsure about the year the battle occurred, and they cannot confirm if the leader was Iltutmish of the Delhi Sultanate. Neither the background nor the battle sections provide details about the events related to this alleged battle.

The battle section is a direct copy of a primary Indian inscription from Hamir Mada Mardan, dated to the 13th century and written by one of the participants, making it unreliable. The aftermath section is disorganized, failing to specify details about the war, belligerents, or aftermath. The article consists of WP:SYNTH and original research, with no reliable sources confirming the battle or its details. As such, the article fails the notability criteria. Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closer:

Please review the background and edit history of the voters (whether they are for "keep" or "delete"). Articles related to Indian history, especially those concerning wars, battles, and sieges, are often sensitive and have been subject to active meatpuppetry for a long time. Kindly disregard comments from active POV pushers, as I discovered this article through the contributions of one.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I think this is not a hoax (or at least not a recent one), as it is mentioned in a few unreliable sources, but just a bunch of OR, there clearly isn't a single mention of even the existence of this battle in reliable sources, meaning it fails WP:GNG (and WP:NEVENT as no lasting consequences or large scope). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayans in Germany

AfDs for this article:

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

Tiny diaspora group, a couple thousand in a country of 80 million. Wikipedia is not for every thinkable cross-national immigrant group in the world. I cannot fathom how this passes GNG either. Furthermore, Notability is not inherited by a group by virtue of a couple of notable individuals holding this ethnicity. The fact that Germany accepted some communists is better conveyed by a sentence in Germany–Uruguay relations. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Uruguay. CptViraj (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 24 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!} 07:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Tsakalidis

AfDs for this article:

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

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manzur Al Matin

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Article seems too frivolous and like a vanity page, in my opinion. More sources would need to be added for this to fully meet notability guidelines. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable person and need more sources. Xegma(talk) 09:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Kumar (producer)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Bihar, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a lot of news story talking about the guy on Google News Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we don't go by Google hits but by reliable secondary sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writesonic

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination: It does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources here are native advertisement with only a few exceptions, which are passing mentions and not in-depth coverage. StrongDeterrence (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maita Sanchez

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NACTRESS or WP:GNG. Nothing that satisfies WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, and Philippines. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails 1 WP:NPOL, WP:BASIC. User:Indo360 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have significantly expanded the article since the nomination. She has over 20+ film credits to her name, though many of which are secondary roles, but some feature her as the lead. She has received multiple shared awards for her work in El Presidente (film). A Two-time mayor and was featured on the Metro Society Magazine cover, December 2012 edition. At this point, the article passes WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it looks like this article has been rewritten. Please review its current version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mac & Cheese 2

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

I have tried to find citations, but only came up with a blog review, which you will see in the article. The artist is well known, but this is a mixtape and not an album, without any proper coverage. Sharamoscar (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sharamoscar (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to French Montana, mixtapes are almost never notable, and this isn’t an exception. Mach61 11:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list from HotNewHipHop mentions a few songs from this mixtape in detail, and this article from Complex has a dedicated section for it. It's not much, and probably not enough on its own, but it's a start and enough for me to abstain from voting. If I were to vote, however, I would suggest French Montana discography#Mixtapes as a redirect target rather than the artist's page itself. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roopkathar Radio

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

Six episode web series cited only to unreliable sources or brief mentions. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and India. C F A 💬 03:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Klikk#Releases -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The U P Files

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviews here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indeed, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Uttar Pradesh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Krautil

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

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources are either not reliable or not providing sufficient support to meet WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think are not reliable?LPascal (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the available sources don't demonstrate GNG here. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 24 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) 03:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is important enough. Also there are more good references available to add to this article. Here is one: "Fiona Krautil produced a discussion pack on ‘What gets in the way of Women’s Advancement?’ for discussion at the Talent Council and the Succession Council, both of which exist to identify and develop high potential people." [11] Rockycape (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't establish notability and is not WP:SIGCOV. The fact that she produced a discussion pack doesn't really advance notability. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is important but needs more improvements with references and details. my opinion is to keep the article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO with a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Several sources exist but they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (e.g. Sydney Morning Herald), WP:TRADES publications (e.g. Lawyer's Weekly) and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (e.g. official bios). At first I thought her entry in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation might qualify her, but it does not appear to be a "dictionary of national biography" (which would be the Australian Dictionary of Biography, where Krautil does not appear) per WP:ANYBIO criterion 3; not only is it not the national biographical dictionary, it appears to be a bullet-point listing of a few posts and articles by her -- not an encyclopedic entry on her life and significance. (The EASI also appears to accept user-submitted content, potentially making it WP:USERGENERATED). All told, an apparently accomplished individual who does *not* pass notability guidelines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971, your final comment, an apparently accomplished individual who does pass notability guidelines., is in conflict with your argument to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz thanks for flagging, that was a typo—now fixed! Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base One (rapper)

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

I found no significant coverage. The only three references in the article are interviews, with two of them being on unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. SL93 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time War (Doctor Who)

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

Wikipedia is not the TARDIS data core. This article is a nonsense. It is written as though describing a real conflict. Most, if not all, of the references are primary sources/the actual episodes of the show where this war is mentioned, including the BBC (the show's production company), Big Finish Productions (the production company for the audio adaptation), BBC Books (the publisher for book adaptations), and Doctor Who fan sites. From my research, all sources related to this fictional-war originate either those primary sources, or from standard run-of-the-mill coverage to promote an episode, with only passing mention of the fictional-war, and no analysis of it. ~~Delete!~~ Per Pokelego999's comment, I'm amending to Merge with Doctor Who (mainly the non-primary-sourced material). Svampesky (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Svampesky (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is a bit buried in the depths of promo material, but a brief search yielded some results. Reviews of The Day of the Doctor (The 50th Anniversary special which got a lot more in-depth coverage than most episodes) tend to yield bits (Such as this AV Club source). I found a Gizmodo source discussing the War in its entirety, though its coverage is smattered throughout the article. This book has a whole chapter on the War, while this book seems to discuss it in association with The Doctor's character a fair bit. A brief glance at this book and this book yields promise, as do a few hits for books in regards to Psychology about the Doctor in association with the War, but admittedly these I can't fully access enough to judge. Given the Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, I'd warrant there's probably more discussing its role within the context of the show, but I only did a brief search, so I'd be happy for other editors to also do searches to see what else I didn't see. Either way, the Time War definitely seems to have coverage, if scattered, that shows its notability, though as the nom said the article definitely needs a rewrite at some point in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I've amended my nomination to merge. [T]he Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, yes; but outside of the Doctor Who fictional-universe, I still don't think it passes any of the points of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for it to have a stand-alone article. Svampesky (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's a non sequitur, right? Nothing is notable inside or outside of any fictional universe; they're either notable, or they are not. We don't have to have documentation of time war reenactors in order to keep the article... we just need independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. In point of fact, "real world" manifestations such as toys are often ignored entirely as non-independent (the same people are making money off of them...) when assessing the notability of fictional topics that CAN be so manifested. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. One of the books you cited The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who (ISBN: 9781849909389) is published by BBC Books, which is a subsidiary of the production company of the show. Svampesky (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm unaware of the circumstances with the BBC (Since its publishing is largely unrelated to the original show) so I'm not sure if it has a use case or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although commentary is needed in the article, that can be done with the sources suggested above, even if discounting the BBC book, and therefore notability is established. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either History of the Time Lords#The Time War (sketchy notability itself) or Time Lord (where it is mentioned throughout). I am having difficulty imagining how this article would even look if written with an encyclopedic out-of universe approach (MOS:REALWORLD): Plot doesn't have production design or casting. In short: I believe this topic is unfixable as a standalone article, even with the sources provided above. I wouldn't mind selective merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Time War was a mostly off-screen event, so casting information is irrelevant. Either way, I'd propose an organization of:

-Developmental information (I know it exists as I've seen bits of it floating around before and I'm aware of a few sources I'd need to double check, but I'd need to do a more thorough search than what I've done above)

-Basic summary of the event, which could probably condense the information in the article to a readable state.

-Reception and Analysis of the War's role in the show's narrative.

I'm confused what you mean by the article being entirely unfixable. It needs a massive rewrite, but it's not undoable with more in-depth rewrites and research. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My nomination still stands as 'Merge with Doctor Who', but I am willing to collaborate on a Draft: of this article if the outcome of this AfD is 'Draftify' and explore additional secondary sources with other editors who are interested in contributing. Please, drop a message on my talk page to notify me if this happens. Svampesky (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Time War is literally synonymous with the plot of Doctor Who. It is what the entire series is about. We already have Doctor Who, History of Doctor Who, History of the Time Lords, Time Lord, and Whoniverse to deal with this information. Several of those also have major gaps in sourcing. Do we really need multiple poorly written articles about the same thing? Please let's start with one article with independent reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true; the Time War is a relatively small part of the overall story of Doctor Who. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rule out Doctor Who and History of Doctor Who, as those are primarily out of universe production information. In the case of the Time War, analysis of its role wouldn't be fitting to place in an article like one of those. Whoniverse additionally is more focused on the actual umbrella brand these days. I'm partial to one of the Time Lord articles should it come down to that, but I'd have to take a closer look to see which is better (I'd honestly AfD History of the Time Lords as well- that article is in a very bad state and can easily be condensed to the original Time Lord article) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checking through the article shows there is nothing there to assert WP:SIGCOV. Sources are nothing but mainly of BBC and affliated sources, per WP:PRIMARY. It maybe notable to the Who fanbase but is it notable for Wikipedia. Articles like this needs to be put out of its misery, fans should be reminded that Wikipedia is not Fandom. WP:ATD will be a redirect SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the sources listed above? Given your rationale is mostly focused on the current state, I'm curious about the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Books is WP:PRIMARY. gizmodo is fine, that's one in. As with The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who, I don't know how much is it about the subject to save it from deletion. As with Religion and Doctor Who, I feel there is a small amount is given to the subject. I feel there is not enough to save itself from a merger, which I think is the best outcome. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can't do further research on the subject later, given my search was rather light. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has been tagged as needing attention, so a good-faith attempt to fix the article should be the first step. If, after removing everything that doesn't meet the required standards, the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, then we can return to the question of deleting or merging it. I don't think we can discuss merging now as the article is far too long for a simple merge. So I come back, again, to - fix the article first. (ETA: forgot to say, WP:TARDIS is an essay, not a guideline; for a convincing deletion argument, I would like to see actual WP guidelines referenced as well, to clearly demonstrate the official standards not met).

JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherCompanion: The notices have been on the page for over two years. As I said above, my nomination remains; but I'm willing to collaborate with editors if this AfD closes as draftify and we restart it from scratch in the Draft: space and work with secondary sources. Svampesky (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some more sources including this one. This one has some scattered bits on how it affected the Doctor's psychology, this one has some brief bits on its production history, this seems to be promising but I can't scan it entirely. The main problem I'm having with my search is that there are a lot of hits but I can't gauge coverage due to the amount of paywalls blocking me (Especially with Scholar, where there a lot of promising hits on things like war and psychology). It seems highly promising nonetheless given what I can preview though, but if anyone can gauge any of the Scholar sources I'd greatly appreciate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an AfD outcome per the above additional sourcing. No objection to further merging as a consensus discussion (but not forced by AfD) outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small consensus to Keep this article but even supporters of this position agree that the article needs an overhaul. But I doubt it can be rewritten during the period of this AFD though. Please review sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Time Lord, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE. The sources heavily cover this as part of their coverage of the Time Lords, and I don't see separate WP:SIGCOV for different articles covering basically the same thing.
Most !votes consent to a merge/redirect. SpacedFarmer and the AFD nominator are delete !votes who have suggested a redirect. Pokelego999 and JClemens are keep !votes who are considering merge targets. JustAnotherCompanion would accept a potential merge, but they have concerns about doing it too quickly or clumsily. The easiest way to reach a consensus is to close this as a merge, and allow the tag to sit there as long as needed to import anything that isn't already covered at Time Lord. The amount of content to WP:PRESERVE can be determined through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Sciences University of Ankara

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

The page was a redirect of a different university so i deleted the redirect and now the page is empty Editor of Universities (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now the page is translated. - Altenmann >talk 02:08, 31 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The nom means that Social Sciences University of Ankara i.e., tr:Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi is not University of Ankara. - Altenmann >talk 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify: Now it is translated, seems notable, but unreferenced, i.e., needs work. - Altenmann >talk 02:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: I have repaired some malformed syntax in this nomination by reapplying {{subst:afd2}}. I am also not sure if simply blanking the previous redirect (which is, on a technical level, not the same as deletion) to bring this to AfD was entirely correct — redirects are generally handled at RfD, but in looking at the page history this could also be interpreted as an objection to a blank-and-redirect from 2019 (AfDs in that realm normally restore the article content, often concurrently with the nomination, but that was unsourced so I'm hesitant to do so here, even procedurally). (The BLAR was contested at the time too, but with Turkish-language content that does not need to return.) Beyond that I provide no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nothing resembling a WP:DELREASON has been given. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: When it was nominated it was wrong redirect. Now the page is translated from tr-wiki, but unreferennced. - Altenmann >talk 02:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although this article has remained unsourced since its creation, I've restored the version before it redirected to the wrong article and a promotional account added content in the Turkish language. The primary question here should be whether this institution is notable. A quick preliminary search doesn't return much independent and reliable coverage. Might have to dig further to find appropriate sources. Aintabli (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have enough unreferenced AI translated garbage as it is. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep state-established universities, as this one clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. It's hard to make sense of how this page has evolved but there is clearly no consensus here yet on what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge Wife

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

Fails WP:BIO. Schierbecker (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Schierbecker (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Derbent (1922)

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

Article is poorly written and relies heavily on unreliable, biased sources. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Iraq, Turkey, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Insanityclown1 What makes you think the sources are unreliable and biased? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı: It would be hard for me (and presumably others with poor Turkish) to check the sources. From your user name I assume your native language is Turkish. Perhaps if you wrote the article in Turkish Wikipedia and used the “alıntı” parameter to quote from the sources then readers would be able to check more easily whether it is correct. If you cannot do that then please at least specify the page numbers. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Powerade-Team Pilipinas

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

This is basically just the Philippine men's national team playing under a corporate sponsor's name. See Articles for deletion/Gilas Pilipinas program.

The team did not play as a club (like in the case of its iteration as RP-Hapee Toothpaste in the PBA that would warrant a separate article for this as a quasi-ballclub. Its essentially just a labeled national team which only purely competed in national team tournaments as Powerade. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audiofy bookchip

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

One news article does not justify an article. Possibly merge to Pimsleur Language Programs - there may be other mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Technology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found that actually mention the bookchip other than mirrors and the already-cited NYT article. As for merging, I can't say if that would be the best thing to do or not because I don't have a NYT subscription and can't see how much coverage is given to Pimsleur and the bookchip. @PARAKANYAA: do you have access to that NYT article? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Relativity You can cheat your way out of the NYT barrier for most articles. In any case it's about three paragraphs on audiofy. Reading it again though I don't think the company behind audiofy has anything to do with Pimsleur and they just happened to serve their product. So maybe just delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal deregulation in New York City

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

This article fails WP:NOTESSAY with its argumentative, WP:NPOV tone and non-encyclopedic approach to its subject matter. As an example of WP:NOT, it thus fails part two of WP:GNG. The subject matter is already covered encyclopedically at Rent regulation in New York. (Note on history: this page was draftified as part of New Page Review to give the creator time to revise into an actual article, but the page creator objected to draftification so it has been restored to mainspace and nominated for deletion.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a POV pushing content fork of Rent regulation in New York. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kissena Park sexual assault case

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Individual sex crimes are very rarely long term notable, and this doesn't seem to have been mentioned past its initial period of a few days. In addition, no analytical coverage exists, there is nothing besides "event occurred", which is not useful for building an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New York. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, an event is notable if it has enduring historical significance (it's WP:TOOSOON to tell about this one) or if it is covered widely (sources are mostly local) and re-analyzed afterward (again, too soon to tell). Furthermore, "[r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes... "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." This event does not pass WP:NEVENTS (yet). I would be open to draftification as an alternative, but the page creator strongly objected to this outcome on a different article and said they would move it back into mainspace.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forcible rape is a horrific and disgusting crime, without any doubt. In 2022, there were 133,294 forcible rapes reported in the US, which has only about 5% of the world's population. There have been countless millions of forcible rapes throughout history, every one a tragedy. As shocking as the details of this specific case seem to be, there is no evidence at this time that this particular case is so unusual and historically significant that it should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If this crime is the subject of in-depth analytical journalism or academic articles or reliable books or documentary films, then we can revisit the topic in the future. It is far too soon to come to that conclusion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every odious and reprehensible act is a notable odious and reprehensible act. If this specific assault case ends up having historical significance, it's a trivial task to undo this decision. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, let's see if the event has WP:LASTING or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is yet another NYC crime article that seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL. Such crimes are quite common in NYC, and I don't think there is a WP:LASTING component to these crimes. Every single source in the article is a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source published during and just after the manhunt. Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[bigscreen-1] McClintock, Pamela (25 April 2024). "Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie to Get the Big-Screen Treatment in 2025". The Hollywood Reporter. Penske Media Corporation.

[2] "In Production - Creative BC". Creative BC. July 10, 2024. Retrieved July 10, 2024.

[3] Anthony D'Alessandro (April 25, 2024). "DreamWorks Animation Dates Big Screen Version Of Netflix Streaming Series Gabby's Dollhouse For Fall 2025". Deadline Hollywood. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved April 25, 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]