Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 15	August 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Fields of Mistria

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

I'll fully admit this is on the edge, but the main sources used here, TechRaptor and Noisy Pixel are essentially unreliable. The game only got 2 major reviews from RS, one from PCGamer and the other from The Escapist, and while it got numerous pieces of coverage from PCGamer, that counts as a single source as far as GNG is concerned. The other mentions the game had, such as in Kotaku, are just trivial coverage of announcements and don't include actual reviews of the game, leaving the amount of significant coverage below the bar for a typical game article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(article creator) Keep or draftify I've removed Noisy Pixel from the article, considering that most other sources mention same things as them, and added recent RS. TechRaptor, on the other hand, is not listed as an unreliable source, unlike Noisy Pixel. The game has actually been reviewed beyond PCGamer and The Escapist, though they might not be as detailed as those two sources. The amount of coverage it received though, especially for an indie early access game from an unknown studio, is enough to meet WP:GNG standards. If editors think the opposite, I feel like the article should then at least be draftified because it will probably continue getting coverage from RS in the coming period (the game was just released in early access last week), after which the article will certainly be ready for mainspace, if it is not ready now. I do not think that straight up deleting the article will be helpful, considering that it will certainly then be re-created at some point in the future. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the 4 discussions on the site, it was struck out as Unreliable. I'm actually not sure why it's listed as inconclusive. But if people decide otherwise here, I'll gladly withdraw the AfD.

The game is early access, so you could be right about the WP:TOOSOON. I still think that merits deletion rather than draftification. This is a case where the page should be saved locally until such time it can be rewritten. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree, but I'd like to hear opinions from other editors. The game has received better or same coverage as other games listed at Upcoming video games scheduled for 2025. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: As someone who planned to create this article, this game is likely to be notable within the next six months (when drafts get deleted after 6 months of no activity) because the game was just released into early access this month. Currently, Metacritic shows just two reviews, both of which are unreliable. Plus two sources is just under what makes a topic notable and its only been a week since launch (I normally say at least three reliable sources). You can see why I didn't publish it rn but planned to work on it by end of month. The article is much larger than expected also. I have a draft sitting in my userspace about this game JuniperChill (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe Gaming

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

Non-notable esports company. Created by the CEO or someone close (disclosed COI), relying almost entirely on press releases and sponsorship announcements (all non-independent) and unreliable sources. WP:VG/S's search has no real indepth independent coverage. -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Noting that I came across this article based on a mention on Discord. I don't believe the references to be sufficient to show independent WP:SIGCOV. My searches for RS didn't add anything to push it over the bar either. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfiltered google results for "Tribe Gaming" primarily show promotional material; When looking in the "News" category, the only results are about gambling in Native American reservations. — BABR・talk 03:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

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

Similar to other articles in the Career achievements of basketball players category, this is a collection of indiscriminate trivia with trivial statistical cross sections, which is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS and does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NLIST. The most pertinent info is already included in the main article. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with severe pruning. Ditch the NBA statistics and Career high sections and trim the NBA records, but that still leaves a notable boatload of the last, e.g. most points scored, most blocks (both now second), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too many for one regular bio page. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there's a solid reason to delete it beyond being statistics-heavy. Kareem is one of the sport's greatest players, something which has drawn extremely extensive commentary, so I don't think this is really indiscriminate.

jp×g 🗯️ 21:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... unless there's a solid reason to delete it beyond being statistics-heavy: The nom mentioned WP:NOTSTATS, which is a policy. —Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic achievements are already at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § NBA career statistics, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Athletic honors and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Legacy. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing As most of this page is unsourced (tagged since April), there's no opportunity to merge either. Consistent with consensus against standalone odes to other Basketball Hall of Fame players and "top 10" of all-time like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Hakeem Olajuwon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus. Let's see if a relisting helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~The sole delete vote recommends merging the material into the main article.~~ However, that article is very long (8098 words), and WP:SIZESPLIT applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not recommend a merge at all: As most of this page is unsourced (tagged since April), there's no opportunity to merge either. As also mentioned, WP:NOTSTATS applies for the trivial numbers as well.—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First all-time (second now) scoring, rebounding and blocked shots are "trivial numbers"? Also, why are you typing "*:"? ":*" actually does something with the asterisk. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned previously, major stats such as those are presented in prose at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Legacy. It doesn't need a standalone list conflated with unsourced trivial stats. As for the indenting question, I was using the reply tool, and its formatting seems consistent with Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks § Best practices—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Colons_and_asterisks#Best_practices says to use things like ":::" or "***", not a mixture. If the reply tool is doing something else, then it's faulty in a minor way. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

There's a mixed example there showing *****: sixth reply.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Bagumba. The important material is already at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, either in the infobox or in the body. I suspect that quite a bit of this is inaccurate or out of date. For starters, LeBron James now holds the record for most All-Star games, not Kareem. That's a relatively major fact that hasn't been corrected. That may just be the tip of the iceberg. Generally speaking, I think Wikipedia does a poor job maintaining articles of this nature, and even if someone does some short-term cleanup, that effort won't be sustained over time. Zagalejo (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia does a poor job maintaining articles of this nature ...: Yes, it's been tagged for months requesting more sources. Per WP:V:
Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.
There's nothing sourced left here that isn't already mentioned in the main bio, if unsourced content is removed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to break the divide between editors arguing to Keep this article and those proposing a Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M M Gobindapur High School

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

Reviewed during New Page patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. I'm normally very lenient on schools but this one just fell too short. Very small secondary school. Has no real sources (just 3 database and internal admin type listings) much less any GNG sources. As a result of no real sources, just has brief "it exists" type content. Previously tagged by others for wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sagardari Union, the encompassing geographic unit, where it could be mentioned in the education section. I agree that the school is not notable. Sohopathi.com and honoursadmission.com have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking. They are indiscriminate, they attempt to be databases of all schools (or all that teach certain grades) in the country, so they do not help establish notability. They also are not independent of the school because they simply scrape and repackage government databases of school-supplied info, such as the Secondary and Higher Education Division and the Bangladesh Bureau of Educational Information and Statistics. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingo Root

AfDs for this article:

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

Same as previous AfD (Possibly malware, few and unreliable sources, written somewhat like an ad) – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ as nominator. Additionally, KingRoot and Kingo Root may be different. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 19:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC) (your nomination is your "vote", this could be seen as a duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, so Soft Deletion is not an option. To the nominator, your nomination is seen as your vote, please do not vote additional times.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CNET from 2016 and DigitalTrends are reliable according to RSP. 1/4 of the content is devoted to the malware suspicions so I don't see how it's writen like an ad, nor is "possibly malware" a valid deletion rationale. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per below, merging would also be good. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is a well known and popular app used to root a phone, it is listed on many sites. (KingRoot is a knockoff of KingoRoot) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a related software article, probably Rooting (Android), as was suggested in the first AfD five years ago. There's not really enough coverage of this to satisfy general notability guideline from what I can see. The main sources on the article currently are self-published and it seems that that may be difficult if not impossible to replace while keeping any content of note in the article. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the 2015 CNet article? It is decidedly not a primary source. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's really the only notable review though that I can see. I still just think that this could easily be covered in the Rooting (Android) article. Many of the other sources on the article seem to be unsuitable; several are just original research forum threads. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only two are forum threads, one of which represents the entire forum’s position; the other one is indeed a problem. I’m not opposed to a merge as the article is indeed quite short, but I think that there are at least two good sources, the other one being DigitalTrends. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the first forum thread not constitute an inappropriate source/original research? Honest question, I would have thought you'd have to get a reliable secondary source reporting on that development instead of a mod on the forum itself. And Digital Trends is a fine source but Kingo is just a small part of that article. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t take my words as gospel, but XDA Developers is a pretty large and influential entity worthy of consideration as its own source. I don’t think it adds to notability, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Immers

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

Immers fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. The sources are more focused on Steven van de Velde than Immers. Dougal18 (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I made a good faith effort to try and expand this earlier but Dougal18 is right, the sourcing is almost entirely about his connection to Steven van de Velde. They did win a match but I don't think that translates to a medal where WP:NOLYMPICS comes into play and even then that's presumptive notability. It's possible I'm not looking in the right places and the current coverage is just drowning out other aspects of this guy's career but I honestly haven't found anything. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Volleyball, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (& delete individual page). Athlete is not independently notable, which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Even the German page about him has no independent sourcing. All notable mentions in the media are connected to Steven van de Velde. Silvymaro (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netherlands_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Volleyball. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article with a couple of his merits that are not related to van de Velde. Commonssense (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The improvements - two youth appearances - are the definition of routine coverage, and passing mentions relating to non-notability-establishing tournaments, at that. And only two, but even if there were three (bare minimum of continued coverage), it's not sigcov. Kingsif (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect even after the improvements my Commonsense this still lacks Notability as it only came from one source, which I still don't know if it is WP:RS Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Steven van de Veldes article was a Keep and deemed notable per WP:GNG. This person is as well notable per good third party sources and Olympic appearance and sports career.BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the AfD is that Immers' connection to someone notable (van de Velde) does not make Immers notable - arguing that someone else is notable is not a !keep argument, let alone a strong one. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immers has now consistent top ten placements in the European Championships, World Championships and the Olympics, so he clearly belongs to a very narrow elite in his sport. His European championship title as a junior may not be enough in itself (I and BabbaQ have expanded the article considerably since most people here argued for redirect) but even that is important in the big picture, how consistent this player has been throughout his career. The argument to keep has nothing to do with the global infamy resulting from his association to van de Velde. As a beach volley player he is equally notable in his own right as van de Velde is in that regard. Commonssense (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to BabbaQ's argument that since Van de Velde has an article, Immers should. Your response, about how great you think he is and how much work you put into adding two lines to the article, is irrelevant to that. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does meet WP:SPORTCRIT, and has more coverage in Dutch. Geschichte (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: Would you be able to link to some Dutch sources that discuss him in depth? Sources don't have to be in English but it helps to have actual links instead of "sources exist". Thanks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose redirect: Matthew Immers has played on a high level with a number different people (such as Yorick de Groot, together with whom he won silver at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics). It is common in beach volleyball to play with multiple partners during ones career. To redirect him to one specific partner is not very helpful. In particular when that specific partners fame is based on the combination of being an Olympian and a convicted child rapists. There is no sports reason to redirect Immers to van de Velde rather than the other way around. The only reason would be that van de Velde is more famous due to being a convicted child rapists. Since Immers is not a convicted child rapists having a redirect that way seems like an (unintentional) character assassination. As per Geschichte and others I would prefer keep due to his results as a player. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed redirect target is surely Netherlands_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Volleyball. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst that for sure is better than Steven van de Velde that is not an obvious target. It is only the competition that is most recent right now. Beach volleyball at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics would likely make more sense, since that is the global competition in which he won a medal. In general redirects are quite overused on Wikipedia in ways that are not very helpful. If not considered noteworthy a simple deletion would probably be better since then search tools can show any of the articles in which he is mentioned. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested Van de Velde as the target since most of the coverage I could find was talking about them together and the article goes into how both of them scored. I'm open to a better target and I think Kingsif's suggestion is the best idea. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you still consider that if the year was not 2024 and the Olympics hadn't just finished? I fail to see that the Olympics is an obvious redirect for someone that have achieved similar results in the World Championships etc. If you do not consider it noteworthy then why not just delete it? Search engines will still find the Olympics and other competitions he competed in (imho we are overusing redirects a lot, their importance is in guiding the user to pages where the article subject is handled in a more holistic way, the goal should not be to make editors happy about that one red link has been removed).

With regards to media exposure etc. I would suggest searching something like [1], i.e. in Dutch and without van de Velde. Most people are mainly written about in their local language rather in English. Can even use something like [2] (with the time bit set to "Archives" to get rid of overexposure of the most recent events). Gunnar Larsson (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Dutch so it'd help if you clarify if these are SIGCOV about Immers or simply passing mentions. If there is enough SIGCOV for GNG, I'm okay with changing my !vote to keep. My opinion on redirecting to the Olympics was because I was under the impression that was the highest level of competition he had competed in (previous comments mention the Youth Olympics and I did not notice the World Championships angle). If he truly isn't notable and he's known for both, I support deleting because the target would actually be ambiguous. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netherlands_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Volleyball. I struggle to see more that routine coverage and no coverage that is focused on the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gunnar Larsson. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netherlands_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Volleyball: I'm not seeing much coverage about this subject specifically in depth, rather most of the coverage mentioning him is about other people. Let'srun (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words or terms that have been trademarked or copyrighted

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

I declined a speedy A10 request as this list title implies it is meant to be different from List of generic and genericized trademarks. However, the only content here is the same elements. Furthermore, we do not have an article trademarked English words and terms, and the scope of this list is overly broad as pretty much any English word or term can be trademarked and many, many have. Whpq (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, many, many words have been trademarked within a particular sector, do not create an article that's duplicative on one side and limitless on the other. Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYWC-AM

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

Previously deleted and salted as DYWC * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The sources I was able to verify were relatively poor, and the creator of this article looks like a spam account. Badbluebus (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dujon Dujonar

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

Fails WP:NFILM, without reviews in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG as well, coverage is limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and tabloid coverage disallowed per WP:SBST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bangladeshi films of 1999 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC) (invited nominator to do so in my DeproD edit summary; not opposed to Keep myself, but his is a standard alternative to deletion when sources exist and cast is notable. I am inviting users who find films/series not notable enough for a standalone page to always consider this possibility.)[reply]
Didn't see that in your edit summary. Not opposed in principle to a redirect but I'd rather have it be stable via an AfD consensus than subject to a revert war. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not characterize Prothom Alo, Bhorer Kagoj, Samakal, Somoy News, or Manab Zamin as tabloid coverage, but all of them make only passing mention of the film, and I could find no better sources, so I agree that it is not notable.

Redirect would be a good choice if I believed that the film might become notable in the future, but I don't. Wikipedia's internal search is much better than it used to be, so without a redirect it will return three lists that include the film and eight biographies of people involved in it. Readers can choose the result(s) they're most interested in.

Delete is the better choice, given that the article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet, and is only ineligible for G5 because it was then extensively edited by someone about whom it was concluded "There's certainly some UPE or meatpuppetry going on", even though they could not be linked by technical evidence to the same sockfarm. (They're currently indefed for advertising and promotion.) --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, consensus is clearly to remove the article. Will the outcome be to delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Varre

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR (with only one significant role in a notable film). The available sources are all tabloid coverage under WP:SBST and/or of questionable reliability under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Repeatedly recreated by UPE/COI editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have more than one significant role in notable productions. Significant does not mean "lead" role only. Did you have his role in Evvarikee Cheppoddu in mind? His role in Badrinath could be considered significant too; and at least a couple of other roles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NACTOR. Just go to Baahubali 2: The Conclusion and ctrl-f his character Sethupathi. He has played negative roles (in films such as Badrinath) which may have garnered more recognition than Evvarikee Cheppoddu.[3] DareshMohan (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per DareshMohan. Multiple significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. The subject's whole career is from unreliable source 123Telugu.com. If you take out everything from the career that is solely from unreliable source, nothing is left. 2 other unreliable sources are Indiaglitz and idlebrain. TimesofIndia source WP:NEWSORGINDIA is also just an interview for WP:PROMO of upcoming film. Fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject's career to consider a standalone notable page but also opting for draftify if the page can be improved with significant coverage with reliable secondary independent sources. Page also fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Page was created by Mr Nerd 96, who is blocked for "Undisclosed paid editing in violation of the WMF Terms of Use, ignored COI disclosure requests and continued editing NSM Public School, Vijayawada, in addition to potentially UPE-edits at Bandi Saroj Kumar, Rakesh Varre." RangersRus (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol-intensive brand

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

Some kinda essay or dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. I am also nominating these pages for the same reason: Icon brand & Cult brand. Polygnotus (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "See also" in your nomination is somewhat confusing. For clarification, I would recommend changing it to something a long the lines of "I am also nominating these pages for the same reason" -1ctinus📝🗨 17:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1ctinus: Thanks!

Fixed Polygnotus (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The one possibly reliable source I could find is this: [4], a scholarly article that uses the concept extensively. Additionally, I can find a Forbes Contributor article (which does not count for notability): [5], and an interview with the professor who coined the term: [6]. These are either unreliable or non-independent. If anyone could find one additional independent source, I would change my delete to a keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a suggestion on the AFD for Cult brand to Merge this article to that one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lifestyle brand. Everywhere that I found (and it wasn't much) that uses this term it was considered a form of lifestyle brand. This article states that it is a super concept to lifestyle brand, which I question. What is here that is specific to Symbol-intensive brands could be added, perhaps as a section, in the lifestyle brand article. That article already includes much of the psychological aspects of branding. Lamona (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Launch System (Turkey)

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

Not notable enough to have its own article. No objection if anyone merges it into Space program of Turkey as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems to meet GNG, various independent sources Lordseriouspig 20:13, 2 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!} 19:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Basketball

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

Disputed draftification, whcih leaves AfD as the route for articles with insufficient referencing and failing WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Africa, and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no opposition to draftify, but my BEFORE doesn't show any promise this passes NCORP as I did't find any sources about the organization that satisfied all three of independent, reliable and SIGCOV. Though, happy to be proven wrong by a demonstration of WP:THREE, as always. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as it is mentioned in multiple sources. As an academy it has produced some upcoming notable players. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the worthy subject matter . Article has abundant sources and produces up and coming athletes. GraceAndFavor improving on this by citing sources. GraceAndFavor (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*)

~~Keep~~ GraceAndFavor working on Article and good sources for this relevant note worthy sports program ~~~~

GraceAndFavor (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC) (you can only cast one "vote" in an AFD so I have struck your duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I wouldn't call 2 sources "abundant sources" and the purpose of this group doesn't help establish its notability. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Zuilhof

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

Article does not pass WP:BLP for multiple reasons: almost all of it seems to be unverifiable original research, it contains no reliable secondary sources, is written in a semi-promotional tone, and the quasi-entirety of its content comes from one single user (including article creation and portrait photo, described as their "own work", strongly hinting at an undisclosed conflict of interest. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atsumari

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

This puzzle has been unsourced since 2009 and searching did not turn up any usable sources. It does not appear to pass WP:GNG. My prod saying the same thing was reverted without edit summary or improvement by User:SJD Willoughby. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly not notable - I also could not find a single reliable source. StartGrammarTime (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farm Credit Bank of Texas

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Haven't managed to find a single independent piece offering significant coverage. There are a few trivial namedrops here and there and that's about it. C F A 💬 19:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, and Texas. C F A 💬 19:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not an ordinary bank, but one of five regional quasi-governmental institutions that lend to agribusinesses. It needs work, but not deletion. I would not oppose a merger with an appropriate article. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Kim

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under sng or gng. Article is basic resume/cv type material. The references are either his employers, him, or brief mentions. I took a closer look at (number circe Aug 16, 2024) which is an interview of him an another person, and #14 which is a promo for an item on their website and content looks like a resume supplied by him North8000 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Television, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Forrest Gump

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

An article for the nickname of an athlete is not a notable topic that should be covered by Wikipedia as a standalone article. Furthermore, much activity related to this athlete on Wikipedia seems suspicious and/or excessive. YannickFran (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are all redirects to the article Jonas Deichmann because there simply is no reason to have all of these. They feel more like pollution than anything else.

Furthermore, a discussion is to be had on whether Cape to Cape (film), Crossing America (film) and The Limit is Just Me should exist as their own pages as they seem to not meet WP:NFP and should instead be merged into Jonas Deichmann, and consequentially, whether Template:Jonas Deichmann needs to exist. --YannickFran (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YannickFran: I've removed your AfD tags on those redirects, as redirect nominations belong at WP:RFD, not this venue. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies and thank you for the help, I've nominated these there. YannickFran (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since I made the article, I will provide my reasoning without casting a vote.

Random nickname for an athlete is not a notable topic that should be covered by Wikipedia as a standalone article. I agree. It's different when the athlete is primarily known by the nickname and the nickname has its own history. This nickname and details surrounding it are featured in major news media in several different countries. Seems notable. I made the article to not clutter the main page. Also, Wikipedia articles about nicknames or pseudonyms are nothing unusual. From Eando Binder to Big Apple to The City That Never Sleeps (nickname) with many others.
About the other nomination (redirects). I made the redirects to improve the overall completeness and followed what is commonly done on other pages. Full explanation at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_16#JonasDeichmann
Strong disagree that the movies and template are somehow questionable, but that's a story for another day.

Småland, Sweden (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nickname does not have "its own history". At best this should be a redirect to a section of the Jonas Deichmann article. Note that of the examples you give, Eando Binder is the article about Earl Andrew Binder and not specifically about his nickname. That's just a case of WP:COMMON, the same reason why the article about Steven Paul Jobs is titled Steve Jobs. As for "Big Apple" and "The City That Never Sleeps": both are relevant for their marketing campaigns that eventually surrounded them and their wide use in culture, and "The City That Never Sleeps" specifically also doesn't refer to just 1 place and the article functions as a list, as well as other uses of that phrase. None of these examples are the same situation.

And unlike all of them, "German Forrest Gump" certainly does not meet the criteria for notability. Looking up possible sources for it, it seems very much like the article has pretty much exhausted any sources that are available online, many of which I'd hesitate to call "major news media". Note that 9 of the 12 sources on that article simply source an article just to pull a translation from it, rather than any actual information of value. Turning to Google, the first page of web search results consists for 50% out of Wikipedia/Wikimedia pages. For another example to the threshold of notability of a nickname, note that King of Pop isn't its own page and is basically just mentioned in passage on Michael Jackson's article. You really cannot tell me "German Forrest Gump" - a nickname used by a literal handful of sources - is more notable than that.

As for the movies, I never said they were questionable. Their notability doesn't rise the the requirements for their own articles as per WP:NFP. When these articles are merged into Jonas Deichmann, it in turn would invalidate the existence of the template. But that's a story for merges, which is why none of them were nominated for deletion here. YannickFran (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indestructoboy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Indestructoboy

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

Article should be deleted This is a BLP that is written by the subject (WP:YOURSELF) and is not notable (WP:NBLP). Subject is a minor streamer (~20k subscribers) and has several self-published gaming materials (all with under ~2,500 purchases).

Example: the main section "Dungeons & Dragons 5e" is just a table of self-published work. There are hundreds or thousands of such self-published works on the site link. Why is this one NBLP?

Example: the section "D&D Open Game License controversy" it is not clear how this subject is important to this event (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=EuroPride&lang=en&q=Open_Game_License).

Example: one of the sources is just the author being interviewed for a news story because he is a teacher.

Example: Eight of the sources are the author being interviewed because of an accident.

Example: "Pounds is a member of the Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity, and has a tattoo of The Triple T's on his right bicep." Why is this important?

Example: "Pounds credits the prevalence of right-wing misinformation about the Star Frontiers: New Genesis racism controversy and the depiction of the Hadozee race in Spelljammer: Adventures in Space to making him openly vocal about his progressive ideology and social issues in gaming.[22] [23]" None of the linked articles mention the subject. IgGiNzZ (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Entertainment, Internet, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of electoral firsts in New Zealand

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Closest thing I can find is this: [7]. Ultimately this is WP:LISTCRUFT with no reliable source dictating which 'firsts' are notable and worthy of inclusion. All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE Re ‘’ List of electoral firsts in New Zealand ‘’ Wikipedia articles on individual MPs frequently refer to an individual MPs claim to fame eg being the longest serving MP (Rex Mason), and the parliamentary website itself has a list of “longest serving Members of Parliament” [[ https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/mps-and-parliaments-1854-onwards/longest-serving-members-of-parliament/ ]]. There are similar lists for other countries eg List of electoral firsts in Canada and List of electoral firsts in the United Kingdom. Hence I do not see the need for an item by item justification of this or similar lists. Hugo999 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE and what Wikipedia writes isn't relevant here. WP:NLIST is which states: 'Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. 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'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you explain your logic with All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research.? I don't follow at all, and your point here seems to be adding 2 and 2 to get 7. Turnagra (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these entries involve original research, for example Iriaka Ratana's source here: [8] does not say she is the first. Instead someone has come to that conclusion via their own research. Stating that these MPs are notable for their 'firsts' is also typically original research, as without a source that states it it's an assumption that their 'first' made them notable rather than the fact that being an MP makes one notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having sourcing issues doesn't necessarily mean that it's original research, though. A cursory google search of that specific example found this within about 20 seconds. I also still fail to see how their inclusion of a first leads to the assumption you're stating at the end, or how that somehow diminishes the notability of the list. I think at the moment I'm leaning heavily towards keep. Turnagra (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't state she was the first MP to give birth. NLIST requires it to have been discussed as a group by a set of independent reliable sources and I do not see any group discussing it. I see no evidence of notability of a list of 'firsts'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, tag it with Template:Citation needed. MPs are discussed as a group and first things are notable to mention - not to mention there are dozens of other "lists of firsts". I'm tapping out of this one now, so no need to continue responding to try and push your point further. Turnagra (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing to delete all "Lists of Firsts?" Hugo999 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any list (and especially lists of "firsts") should be discussed in reliable sources as a topic AND the criteria must not be indiscriminate. (see this recent discussion). So, this fails NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. --Enos733 (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Fails WP:NLIST. Azuredivay (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that other "List of electoral firsts in ..." be added to this AfD. I get the trivia argument and think it applies to them all, not just this one. Kiwichris (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD is successful I will nominate other similar lists. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The similar lists should be considered together as a group, not one by one, and should include the category Category:Lists of the first women holders of political offices. So are you prepared to resubmit a proposal to delete as a group all the lists you think should be deleted? This is so that people who object to List C being deleted are not told that it has already been discussed for List A and List B without your participation? Hugo999 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss how to go about deletion of other list articles we can do it on my talk page rather than here. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted above the New Zealand Parliament website has a section called

”Longest serving members of Parliament” [ https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/mps-and-parliaments-1854-onwards/longest-serving-members-of-parliament/ ] which has sections on Longest serving Members of Parliament – Longest, shortest, oldest, youngest, Maori, Asian, Pacific MPs,
Firsts for women in Parliament including Iriaka Ratana as the first MP to become a mother, Whetu Tirakatene-Sullivan as the first MP to become a mother while Parliament was in session, Jacinda Adern as the first (NZ) Prime Minister to give birth while in office.

Doubtless the Parliamentary staff (Parliamentary Library researchers ) got enquiries from both visitors and other MPs, and wanted a reliable source! Hugo999 (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the lists at [9] - this isn't random TRIVIA but is normal statistics of who has served in the legislature, and any cleanup of being discriminate (most of it is) can be performed in editing. NLIST requires sources, this is source-able. SportingFlyer T·C 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Littleton, Colorado

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

Completely unreferenced list of entirely redlinked or unlinked people. As always, the core purpose of a Wikipedia list is to help readers find Wikipedia articles, so a list of mayors has to have at least some blue links in it -- it appears from the edit history that a couple of the most recent mayors had articles in the past, but they've all been deleted so that this is now entirely a list of unlinked names. As well, lists still have to be properly referenced just the same as any other article, but this features no referencing at all.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of the subject area, and better access to sources that would verify the mayors' names and terms, is willing to tackle cleaning it up, but it can't be retained as an unreferenced list with no bluelinks in it. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Colorado. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's a similar Afd. I don't believe their keep arguments are too strong. Its also kind of crazy to realize that this article is 21 years old. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think merging to Littleton, Colorado#Government could remove an unnecessary fork and keep the information available. I found a reference for the list as well and I didn't see any mention of any of the mayors being elected to the state legislature in their biographies I found. (In other words, none of the redlinks appear to meet WP:NPOL) TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonk on the Head

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

There may be reviews of this book; I couldn't find them, and that award, Ottawa Book Award, I am not convinced that a city-wide award automatically confers notability on a book. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a single review on newspapers.com (strangely already clipped). More reviews from Canadian publications on proquest ([10] [11] [12] [13]. This might also be a review but I don't have access. The Globe and Mail review is probably the best one, especially since it's a paper of record. All very Canadian but a non-terrible article could be built from this, and it's far over NBOOKs anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is the only book the author John-James Ford has ever written, so I think his article should be merged to this one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Kabiri

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

Not seeing how they satisfy WP:NPOL. He only served as a "deputy of cooperative affairs in the Ministry of Cooperation, Labor and Social Welfare". Does not meet WP:GNG at best. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Iran. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the correct title would be Deputy Minister. This is backed up by Farsi sources, that his title was 'معاون وزیر'. Deputy Ministers of national govts are notable, and in this case also member of Steering Council of national govt. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is an NPOL pass - generally, presumed notability would be for cabinet-level posts, but as far as I know deputy ministers in Iran do not serve at cabinet level. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:25, 9 August 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) 18:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dandenong West Football Club

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

Contested redirect (courtesy @Nyttend:) and N/C a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dandenong Football and Netball Club, but still no evidence of independent sourcing leading to notability for this team. Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I came along, I found that it had been redirected on notability grounds, while other clubs in its league still had articles. I have no opinion on notability, but I believe it absurd to have articles on some clubs in a league while redirecting others. If this concludes in deletion, others ought to be handled likewise. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a few non-AFL club articles which are pretty rundown and poorly maintained, I've just done some work fixing this one and there's plenty of independent news coverage about it Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or delete, either would be appropriate) The references added since the original nomination all fall under the banner of WP:LOCALCOVERAGE (since most are from the local council newspaper) or non-independent sources. There are two references to the club from the website of the Herald Sun, which ostensibly meets the threshold of being a major statewide newspaper – but a closer look would suggest that those are both the 'Local Footy' section of the newspaper's website, which tends to be an online mirror of affiliated council newspapers – plus they're quite WP:ROUTINE. On the balance of everything I don't think it quite meets a GNG hurdle. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 9 August 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) 18:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yazeed Al Rashed Al Khuzai

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. An author with non notable literary works. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, Jordan, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romhacking.net

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

A defunct website recently "in the news". Anecdotal evidence here doesn't appear to pass WP:NWEB. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I initially tried to redirect it due to only having extremely recent sources, but sources were added from 2019 and 2023 that shows it appears to pass SUSTAINED by having been mentioned repeatedly in the press. It was created in poor shape, but WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems are not an adequate deletion rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mullen

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

Lacks references other than external links to the subject's own sites/publications. Reads like a resume of her career, as in the list of grants, and an advert for her published works. No examination or analysis of her work and significance, if any, nor independent discussion of her relationship to the pantheon of modern poets/authors. A WP:BEFORE search turns up just her books and news reports of one incident in Fall, 2023, when she resigned in protest over the Israel-Hamas war. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:BIO. As far as third party, independent publications about the subject, they are mostly limited to the one event mentioned. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, California, and Iowa. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities at the Eureka Stockade

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and ~~Austria~~. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that The Eureka Encyclopaedia has various entries such as "Canadians at the Eureka Stockade" and "Italians at the Eureka Stockade" etc. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Needs trimming, but such bibliography articles are usually alright for extensively-covered topics. Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is well covered topic. We could trim the bibliography or we could triple the size of it actually. But all the really seminal sources are already there. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's a handy article. I see that there are other similar bibliographies, such as the Bibliography of the American Revolutionary War. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could be an easy keep if there is evidence presented that books about this topic have been discussed as a group. Have they? It seems notorious enough that it's possible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Lancaster, Pennsylvania mayoral election

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

No lasting notability for this election, fails WP:NEVENT. Let'srun (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, Politics, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have any lasting coverage, unlikely redirect to anything. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CityDisc

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

Doesn't seem WP:N. I found very few reliable sources of information for this chain. TryAgainSooner (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. TryAgainSooner (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, and Companies. C F A 💬 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be some hits for this place on Swiss newspaper archives. Haven't done a more in depth search yet but here is one piece that isn't terrible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is more often spelled with a space or a hyphen (City Disc or City-Disc). This seems to be, or at least was, a not insignificant Swiss company. I added several sources to the page; there are a lot more hits but I find these three sources to be the best attesting of its notability: [14] [15] [16]

One of those sources is from Le Nouveau Quotidien as well which at the time was one of the only two non-regional standard Francophone newspapers in Switzerland (later Le Temps) so that probably satisfies the broad audience aspect of N:CORP, imo. I am not particularly well acquainted with the company notability criteria, however. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items

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

Unsourced. No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can find reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to this book. I tried and couldn't. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gather from a reply elsewhere that this "is just one of 461,644 pages that have been marked as "needing additional references"" so it seems a rather pointless exercise to delete this one and leave the other 461,643 pages alone.

As the author of the article, I have no strong feelings about its deletion or not - the only effect of removing it is to make Wikipedia ever-so-slightly less useful as a reference tool, and if your objective in life is to weaken Wikipedia's usefulness then by all means go ahead. Philsp (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philsp, inappropriate articles are being deleted continuously. Roughly 600,000 articles have been deleted through the Articles for deletion process, and we have two other deletion processes as well. Our objective is to ensure that articles comply with our policies and guidelines. This one clearly doesn't. Cullen328 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I am no fan of eugenics and can only mourn those 600,000 articles you have deleted, many of which would, I am sure, have been very useful contributions to Wikipedia - certainly more so than myriads of articles that DO meet "your" policies and guidelines. Philsp (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fredric Brown bibliography#Mysteries, where it is listed. I searched all the places I could, newspapers.com, gale, proquest, archive.org/google books, got nothing. It is listed there though and it provides context as to what exactly this was collecting, so why not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trowel (journal)

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

Non-notable student publication that fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. I cannot find sufficient sources to establish even the basic facts (like whether this student-run journal is even still operating). The only source I can find, that contains anything at all, is the publication's own (wordpress) website. And that hasn't been updated since mid-2019. Five years ago. Where is the indication that this short-lived(?) journal is "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area", or "frequently cited by other reliable sources", or "historically important in its subject area"? Where is the coverage in independent/reliable/verifiable sources? I certainly can't find any. An entry in the "Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals" says that it "does not reach the inclusion threshold" (as its distribution/circulation is too low?). It is also hard to overlook that the article was seemingly created by a COI/SPA contributor (in quasi-promotional format about its 10th edition).... Guliolopez (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found nothing except a bit on something about theses they publish which is not helpful or sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weather by year

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

A poorly sourced list of largely unrelated statistics. No idea why it jumps from 1946 to 1997, no idea where the number of snowstorms comes from, no idea why we would add the number of tropical cyclones (extreme weather events) to the number of tornadoes (for the most part very local, very minor events) and not count e.g. the number of rainfall-induced floods instead. While comparing the number of US tornadoes or the number of cyclones year by year is done and may be useful, this grouping of these statistics in a kind of novel synthesis with very unclear inclusion rules doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. WP:NOTSTATS and so on. Fram (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. Fram (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I never thought the article should exist. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in the Americas

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

This is basically a directory article again, WP:NOTADIRECTORY, we have categories for this. We don't need list article for this. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Lists, South America, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in the Middle East and Africa

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

What wikipedia is not, is not a WP:NOTADIRECTORY which this article clearly is. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Lists, Africa, and Middle East. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinikanth Vellalacheruvu

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

Article previously deleted for unambiguous promotion, recreated as draft and unilaterally moved to mainspace. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NJOURNALIST. Available sources are almost exclusively WP:PRIMARY or WP:YOUTUBE links (or both). The handful of other sources are limited to tabloid coverage excluded under WP:SBST and questionable coverage under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Recommending a redirect to TV9 Telugu as an AtD but given this history of this page (BLAR immediately reverted) we will need an AfD verdict to make it stick. OK with outright deletion as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TV9 Telugu - Nothing I'm finding is about him; it's just reports and interviews he participated in. (string:"rajinikanth vellalacheruvu") —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seems to be no independent source with significant coverage among the 32 sources cited in the article. Some are self-published, i.e. from TV9, YouTube videos and interviews hosted or anchored by the subject. There is also some coverage of his tweets, but nothing substantial about his work as a journalist in reliable and published third-party sources. The article is poorly written, so it's not worth saving its page history as a redirect. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Governor-Chief Minister conflict of West Bengal

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

Why is this particular relationship between two government offices in West Bengal particularly notable? Yes, there are many examples provided where conflicts occur, but this is a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to suggest there's something unique here. Nothing links to this article. No independent recognition that this is remarkable. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very much OR. Most of the sources are indirectly about this "conflict"; I don't see or find much of anyone else discussing it however. Likely not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's mentioned in the last month [17] in the media, but I don't see confirmation that this has been an ongoing issue. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete - It is an government and political conflict which is going on in West Bengal state on every issue and it is a very vital issue for the state. So it should not get deleted.

VNC200 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: VNC200 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

But conflict is immensely common among government bodies (some might even argue it is essential). There's nothing uniquely notable about this particular case. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WERI-LP

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

Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another remnant of the considerably looser inclusion standards of 2010. The apparent lack of any known programming information would certainly suggest the lack of any non-FCC coverage here, significant or not. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger D. Nelson

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

I'm having trouble finding secondary sources independent of this subject. WP:FRINGE is also a concern here. 0xchase (talk) 14:17, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might pass AUTHOR with book reviews [18], [19], but I wonder if those are about the same person; wiki article is about a parapsychologist, this seems to be about a more mainstream psychologist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The first review you list is in Journal of Scientific Exploration, which (searching WP:FRINGEN archives) appears not to be considered reliable. The second is from the Society for Psychical Research, also of dubious reliability. Per WP:FRINGE, we need mainstream coverage of this material, not affirmations from other believers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this and improve it. It is the way of the future; the Global Consciousness Project is now in it second phase and is set to be a vital source of information about the interaction of consciousness with the material world. Those who cling to materialism are a dying breed. 197.88.230.219 (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling automobiles in China

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

These data are not official, probably OR. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 14:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 14:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and China. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not clean up. – The Grid (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: lots of coverage of the topic out there. Meets WP:NLIST. C F A 💬 16:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Rebellion in popular culture

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Popular culture, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep? It seems that this article is sourced which suggests it is notable. Is there a problem with the sources here? If not, then it's fine. Parent article is very long so a spin-out on this topic per summary style is fine, as long as the sources discuss the later cultural influence - which it seems that they do. SnowFire (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vexillology of the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no reliable third party sources present or discoverable to meet GNG, no notable election victories or the like to justify notability. Also appears to be defunct. Due to splits and other events regarding international organisation it was a part of, there's no clear redirect target. As a result should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Pierre White Jr

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. This person seems to only be notable for being the first man to be evicted on any UK series of Big Brother. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 14:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting yet, but I did consider redirecting it myself after its failed DYK nomination (I created the article and it was originally much longer). I would say there's more than enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage of him, though I wonder if WP:NPF applies. Pinging @UndercoverClassicist, RoySmith, Vaticidalprophet, Theleekycauldron, AirshipJungleman29, and Freedom4U: for their input.--Laun chba ller 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least on the current sources provided, there's a question mark over WP:NOTNEWS for me -- lots of sources, but all ephemeral tabloid stuff rather than any serious interest in the person himself. I suppose there's an argument that the sheer volume of such coverage implies that someone is interested in him, but I'd need convincing at the moment that those interested people include enough sources that would clear WP:RS (and perhaps WP:NINHERITED to boot). At the moment, I don't think I have a vote either way, but that may change as this discussion develops. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll just quote myself from the DYK nomination because I think it applies just as well here as it did there: I'm not a fan of these types of articles. I don't know if I can justify this on any policy grounds, but IAR yuck. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I've just taken the time to read the entire article. It's worse than my initial impression. Either of WP:CRIME or WP:BLP would work for a policy-based justification. Please make this go away. RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage seems rather unencyclopedic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Stamper

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

She fails WP:BIO , WP:JOURNALIST and definitely WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Television, and England. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did not find enough coverage in WP:RS, and does not meet any specific guidelines. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basant Chaudhary

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Of the 5 references, 3 are his own websites, 1 is a two sentence database type listing of him, and the other is announcement of release of two items. Could find anything better in a search. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying, the release of "two items" are books of poetry. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The name is too common to find anything about this person. I pull up businessmen with a same name, nothing about a poet. Sourcing now used in the article doesn't help, as the nom explains. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't find any non-primary WP:SIGCOV. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured One

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like not meeting NCORP, no reliable media. BoraVoro (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 16 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds United F.C.–Millwall F.C. rivalry

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

Delete. The article exaggerates the relationship between two teams who have played each other only 38 times in the English Football League (EFL). They have never met in either of the FA Cup or the EFL Cup. The only time they met outside of standard league fixtures was in a two-legged playoff semi-final in 2009. The article says this supposed rivalry began in October 2007 when Millwall fans went on the rampage in Leeds. As everyone knows, Millwall fans are notorious for rampage and one incident in Leeds does not automatically create an acknowledged "rivalry".

The only London clubs with which Leeds have had any kind of "rivalry" are Chelsea, Arsenal, and to some extent Spurs. As far as matches against Millwall are concerned, they mean nothing more than a match against the likes of Charlton Athletic, Leyton Orient, QPR, etc.

The teams met twice last season in the EFL Championship and I am not aware of any sources which reported those games in the sense of a rivalry. See the [20] and [21] BBC reports which do not convey any special connection between the clubs—unlike when Liverpool play Manchester United, for example. That is because this supposed rivalry does not exist.

If the article has any use as a head-to-head history of matches played by the two clubs, then it should be renamed and given a fresh perspective to provide a true context. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep Yep, it's more of a head to head with routine coverage, yes Millwall will always be Millwall and the supporters do tend to get a reputation, however they have had a little bit of a rivalry at times. I am inclined to keep the article, I feel there is enough on there to show what it's is referring too, especially since the rise of hooliganism. And the article is incredibly well sourced. Govvy (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a lot of work has gone into it, including citations, but the sources are of the head-to-head and routine match coverage variety. There is little if anything in the sources that justifies the presentation of this subject as a keen rivalry which is evident whenever these teams meet. Rivalries are usually derby matches as in Old Firm, Merseyside, Manchester, or North London. For two teams this far apart, we need much more than a couple of hooliganism incidents and one play-off semi-final. Leeds missed promotion last season by losing to Southampton in the playoff final following another defeat by Saints at the end of the league season. On that basis, it could be argued that there is a Leeds/Southampton rivalry. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Millwall and Leeds managers, and the former Millwall chairman consider it a rivalry, see 1, 2, 3, and 4. The local newspapers for the clubs called it a rivalry, see 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The nominator PearlyGigs claims, "The teams met twice last season in the EFL Championship and I am not aware of any sources which reported those games in the sense of a rivalry." Yet, the second result on Google for a 'Leeds Millwall rivalry' search is a NY Times article written on 17 September 2023, covering the rivalry in depth after the first meeting in the 2023–24 season. I have now added this reference to the wiki, as it gives a great history of why they are rivals.

Leeds rivalry with Millwall is much more current than their rivalry mentioned with Chelsea, which seems to have been defunct since the 1980s. Leeds and Chelsea have played nine times in the last 20 years. Leeds and Millwall have played 30 times over the same period, and their rivalry is far more relevant. There is a Channel 5 tv documentary called CCTV Cities which covers the rivalry from the perspective of West Yorkshire police, who consider Millwall fans the hardest to police because of the rivalry.

PearlyGigs only referenced two random BBC articles and their personal opinion as a reason for deletion of a Wikipedia article. The article is not exagerrated and is well referenced from both sides of Leeds and Millwall. I have added more references too, including quotes from Leeds and Millwall managers.TheLostBoy (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make sure that the article has extensive sourcing to verify an assertion (i.e., that there is a rivalry) which was always likely to be challenged.

The choice of the two BBC articles was not random, by the way. BBC match reports are generally high quality, compared with tabloid rubbish, and they do tend to set the scene. If you read any BBC report on a Liv/ManU match, you will soon be aware if you didn't already know that those two teams are playing for bragging rights as well as points. The BBC reports on last season's Leeds/Millwall matches are routine coverage only, no different from the reports of Leeds' matches against Cardiff, QPR, Stoke, whoever. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last two BBC articles on Chelsea vs Leeds makes no mention of a rivalry, 1, 2. Does that mean there isn't one? Heavily policed fixtures with changed kick-off times rarely have incidents now. You ignored the NY Times article on the history of the rivalry by Phil Hay, a local Leeds journalist who covered the club for 18 years.

Also, with your reasoning regarding far apart rivalries, the Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Crystal Palace F.C. rivalry should be deleted since the whole article is basically H2H stats with minimal citations on why they are rivals. This article does have extensive sourcing about multple incidents throughout the last 20 years, not just hooliganism or a play-off semi. See Istanbul chant, Saville chant, Ankergren assault. There is more and a ton of stuff online about the rivalry. I'll add when I have time. TheLostBoy (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll leave it with you. By the way, our "rivalries" with ManU and Chelsea really do belong in the Revie Era. I would always maintain that our greatest rival of those years was Liverpool, but Revie was a close friend of Bill Shankly so it gets downplayed. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Following recent edits, the article now has sufficient sourcing to justify the subject-matter so I'm happy for it to be kept. Could someone please do the necessary case closure? Thank you, TheLostBoy, and let's hope for a good game in November. I think Burnley and Coventry will be the teams to beat this time, and perhaps the Baggies. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Denis Chudý

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

Chudý played 14 matches for AS Trenčín before being sent to lower leagues. My searches did not show any significant coverage for him, not even in reliable secondary sources. Searching "Denis Chudý" on Google prefer to find other men with the same name instead of footballer, failing WP:V too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 16 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꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like there might be some SIGCOV here if anyone has access to Sme. JTtheOG (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persija Jakarta–Persiraja Banda Aceh rivalry

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

I see nothing here that shows WP:NRIVALRY, this is just a head to head again. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC Milan (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover a drivers' signings, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiacos CFP (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover a driver's crash and his medical update, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unstoppable: Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks, and Ossie Davis

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

fails general notability guideline. ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Warrington Hudlin: No significant coverage, it is only mentioned in the obituaries of its three subjects. Redirect to the moderator. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since this is an important film featuring four important people in conversation, and has not been officially released since it's first airing. I added a few sources I found based on a very quick search. There seem to be more. AppleInYourEye (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AppleInYourEye: those don't contribute to notability, they're movie databases. ltbdl☃ (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AppleInYourEye: See WP:INHERITED. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agora Club International

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

Non-notable service club. There are some secondary sources that mention this organization or its regional/local chapters, but they are all routine news. Some examples: 1, 2, 3. Per my WP:BEFORE there are no WP:ORGDEPTH sources. —Alalch E. 10:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Alalch E. 10:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Turkic-Azerbaijani relations

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

Synthetic topic: Azerbaijani is a Turkic language, and there's nothing here that isn't better placed somewhere either on Azerbaijani language, Oghuz languages, or Old Turkic. The roughly analogous Proto-Germanic–English connections article would surely seem absurd. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luigi video games

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

This article seems to be highly OR in terms of what is considered a "Luigi video game." A quick BEFORE yields little to no results for an overarching series bar Luigi's Mansion, which seems to be notable as a separate series. However, every other entry just happens to be every time Luigi starred in a game, with no clear reasoning as to if it's meant to count as a "series" or not. (As no source I can find links together a Game & Watch Luigi game and Mario is Missing! to any of Luigi's later solo games, for example) The Luigi's Mansion series seems notable, but every other entry this list doesn't seem to have the citations needed to really verify that they're part of a series of video games, nor do they verify that these games are even notable as a group beyond starring Luigi in them. The current article feels very unneeded, given there's nothing claiming notability for this being a notable sub-category of games, and a grouping of video games that just so happen to star a notable character just doesn't hold water. Even if the article were to be focused on Luigi's Mansion, it would need a complete TNT. This list feels better off deleted, with a Luigi's Mansion series article being made if editors find that the subject can be made into a separate article, but the concept of "Luigi video games" just doesn't seem to hold weight as either a series or as a notable sub-collection of videogames. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could definitely see this as a useful article. The reader (mainly gamers) would be able to tell which games are more focused on Luigi even if there is no leading "Luigi" title for game (ex. Mario Is Missing!). However I do think it should have been created after there were more than 15 installments, rather than 9. I feel like it leans more on the Luigi's Mansion series for notability. Sackkid (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are definitely a lot of my problems with the current list. There's very few entries, most are unrelated to each other bar a shared protagonist, and it leans heavily on the Luigi's Mansion series as it's the only really notable "series" there. If people want to see what games Luigi featured in, his navbox is still there (Even if that also needs work) or, at worst, this article could be lightly merged into Luigi's article, so that way those interested in seeing Luigi's starring games can find them there. (Not my preferred outcome, but definitely an idea if people feel it worthwhile). Outside of the Luigi connection, these games don't really hold much water as a group, and a guy starring in a set of games does not make that subcategory of games separately notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we really claiming the Luigi games aren't a spinoff? Seriously? Nintendo even did a Year of Luigi promo which is currently a Good Article. While it's not as large a sub-series as Mario, trying to deny it exists boggles the mind and we certainly aren't hard-up for hard drive space that would necessitate folding it into the Mario series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally cannot find sources indicating it exists under one banner, and outside of Luigi's Mansion, the only separate game series I can find relating to Luigi is Mario & Luigi, which is a separate series and not entirely focused on Luigi. As it currently stands, the list is just a miscellaneous assortment of games starring Luigi with no verification of the series' own separate notability. Compare this to something like Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games, which have multiple successful series that can be verified even with a quick Google search. You are right in saying that these games are spin-offs, but they aren't really tied together in a way that shows inherent notability bar happening to be associated with Luigi.

As a note, Year of Luigi doesn't really focus on the Luigi games as one series, with the games released under that year being variations of pre-existing games. Dr. Luigi is a spin-off of the Dr. Mario series, Mario & Luigi: Dream Team is a single entry of the wider Mario & Luigi series, and the various Luigi "remixes" are just variations of pre-existing games. There was a focus on games having Luigi in a starring role, but trying to say that immediately makes a random collection of games notable is like saying Shadow the Hedgehog has his own series because he's had big roles in several games and had a whole year dedicated to him as well. Luigi's Mansion is really the only one here that can be uniquely verified as part of a wider, notable branch of games. A list like this is the equivalent of attempting to make a "List of Pikachu games" and just lining it up with Pikachu's assortment of unrelated spin-off games that aren't branched under one umbrella (Games, for example, like Hey You, Pikachu! and Detective Pikachu (video game) focus on the character, but are not part of an umbrella franchise starring the character like characters like Yoshi and Wario are).

My problem with this list is not a matter of "trying to deny the Luigi games are spin-offs" or some bizarre thing like that, but rather that this list doesn't verify how the games featuring him are individually notable of the original Mario franchise, nor does it contain sourcing verifying the Luigi games as one major umbrella property like other notable Mario characters happen to have. This list is simply unverifiable. If you or anyone else can dig up sources noting these games are part of one whole umbrella, with notability and description inherently separate from the Year of Luigi or the Luigi character, then I'd be happy to withdraw since I just happened to miss stuff in my search. But right now as it stands, the list just lacks the things it needs to really meet guidelines and justify a split off any other article. I do hope this clears up my viewpoint a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep but I see where the nom is coming from. Luigi is too interlinked with Mario (being his sidequick) to really rise to stand-alone Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games status, but he's also further along than Princess Peach and Toad (Mario) (who both have several games named after them but no sub-franchise article). It seems Nintendo keeps pushing for a new stand-alone franchise, even if it's currently mostly Mansion. Since Mansion doesn't have an overarching series article yet (but could have) and instead hatnote-links to this list, I'd rather keep this list and see where Nintendo takes it, until we can decide how to best present the information. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, how List of Wario video games is featured and how it is different from Wario (series) doesn't make sense to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is... bizarre. I didn't even know there were separate articles for both of these until now. There's a lot of content overlap there that should probably be merged, but that would require a heavy amount of editing and decision making to accomplish that's not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I can see an argument for there not really being a Luigi series, maybe there's an argument to be made about repurposing it into a Luigi's Mansion series article instead, which is more of a concrete, actual series? Just a thought, currently undecided on what to do personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do agree that something like this might have potential (specifically the potential for a Luigi's Mansion series page), but I'm also agreeing with Pokelego's stance on how to handle this. It's hard to tell what exactly a "Luigi video game" is, and this list has nothing worth saving even in the event a Luigi's Mansion series article, or something on the lines of that, is created. λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Luigi's game appearance are covered on Luigi#Appearances and I think the article is below WP standards as is. But considering the Mario franchise has similar lists like List of video games featuring Mario, I don't think the scope of this AfD can resolve anything. IgelRM (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That list very much feels like it fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE given it's covering every time a video game happens to feature Mario, one of the most iconic characters of all time who is so frequently referenced and parodied that a list like this seems very useless in terms of use. It feels like it'd be better off rebranded to being a list of Mario franchise videogames, but that feels like a separate discussion that would take place outside of the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Agreed with the nom that there isn't a "Luigi series" and that this list presents original research issues in implying such a series exists apart from appearances of the character. The alternative to deletion is to redirect to the existing section on Luigi appearances, which is what a reader looking for this topic would be least astonished to arrive. czar 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It falls under WP:COMMONSENSE given that all the games both have Luigi in the title and star him as a main character. Original research is going out and confirming something that isn't obvious. We shouldn't be spending time debating whether grass is green or 1+1=2. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these can't be verified as unified group, then it's just a collection of every game Luigi's happened to star in with no other real connecting thread. Yes, we can verify these games happen to star Luigi, but that's not really the point of this. The point is that this list simply is not verifiable as defining what a "Luigi video game" is, nor is it able to show why this subset of games is notable beyond happening to focus on Luigi. The collection of games themselves are not unified by a connecting thread like other Mario series articles, such as Yoshi or Wario, and no sources verify if they can be. This list simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If there is no "Luigi series" and this is a list of games featuring Luigi, then we should view it as a summary style split from Luigi#Appearances. I don't think the sourcing warrants the split. czar 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source has Miyamoto referring to the Year of Luigi titles as "Luigi games", which appears to show that their creator views them as a single group even outside the Luigi's Mansion series. That's confirmation enough for me, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's no coverage on Luigi games as a group. Most sources that tie to them are tied to Year of Luigi and don't show the games as being independently notable outside of that event, and the fact the games exist does not immediately warrant an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is definitely notable even it does lean on the Mansion series. But overall, it is definitely helpful to readers including myself. Sackkid (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE,WP:ITSHELPFUL, and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split out Luigi's Mansion series, then delete - it seems to be the only notable series involved here. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Czar and NegativeMP1; the Year of Luigi does not demonstrate the existence of a continuous, overarching group of "Luigi games". I find it difficult to believe that Luigi's Hammer Toss and New Super Luigi U are part of the same "series" or are even discussed in any significant capacity as part of the same well-defined group. ― novov (t c) 06:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An alternative to deletion is to really focus on Luigi's Mansion only because that is really a franchise. OceanHok (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lone lead character. It doesn't claim to be a "series", so I'm not sure why the nom thinks that should be relevant. There are plenty of articles that list related media together without them being an actual "series". Not all of the games in List of video games featuring Batman are a part of one series, for instance.128.151.71.8 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bring up the series argument to show how there is no real explicit reason why this list is notable. A list that consists of games that happen to have Luigi as the protagonist is an indiscriminate collection of information unless sources touch on it. The sources do not support separate notability, neither as a series of games, nor as a collection of games. Also, see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have other articles on similar subjects does not mean this list is suddenly exempt from the standards of notability, as there are plenty of similar lists that don't meet standards running around. (I will note the Batman one is pretty low quality- like, it's using GameFAQs as a source, for example. I do feel there's potential grounds to improve that list given Batman itself is a franchise, and Batman has several notable game series, but I wouldn't know where to begin on that. Luigi's list doesn't have much of a hope of improvement bar Luigi's Mansion, which can just be split off from the rest should other editors decide that's beneficial for readers, per the above arguments on the list's contents.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "List of video games featuring X" is different from a "List of X video games". IgelRM (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Agree that it is literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lead character. Jennysue61884 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Was leaning keep until I saw that that exists. At this time, I agree with Czar's points made earlier about constituting original research. Maybe a Luigi's Mansion article could be created. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do think this passes WP:NLIST and is broadly talked about as a grouping in enough sources to let it be a standalone article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? The article has none discussing them as a group and none have been shown in this AfD nor found in any BEFOREs that would verify notability as a group. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though some of it is just about Luigi in general, this article from Nintendo Life does speak about the Luigi games as a group in the "going solo" section. On a side note, responding to almost every differing !vote in a discussion can be seen as WP:BLUDGEONy and not really respecting people's intelligence in being able to create a cogent opinion on a topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cult brand

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

Some kinda essay or dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. I am also nominating these pages for the same reason: Icon brand & Symbol-intensive brand. Polygnotus (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is mostly OR and its topic is a sub-category of Symbol-intensive brand, above. If that article is kept, I could support a partial merge of this article with that one. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lifestyle brand. Lamona (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all OR and other unsourced material. BoraVoro (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BoraVoro: What will be left? Only a dictionary definition. WP:NOTDICT Polygnotus (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good question. I agree with NOTDICT guideline. BoraVoro (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seneb-Neb-Af

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

I can only find sources and content unduly taking about mastaba. ~~If there should be ATD, then redirect.~~ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Egypt. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: mastaba is not an appropriate redirect target, as he is not mentioned there. It's clear that he's only notable as the person who was buried in his mastaba, though, so the AfD discussion here should centre on whether Mastaba of Seneb-Neb-Af is notable (we can rename the article after the AfD if so). -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for that, Asilvering. I think we should redirect this article somewhere for now since Mastaba of Seneb-Neb-Af hasn't been created yet. Is there any target you can think of? I wouldn't support renaming because the article is a mess; lacks sources and sufficient context. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mastaba is a generic term for a type of tomb. Redirecting there would make no sense. It could be mentioned at Dahshur#Tombs and cemeteries, though. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this target but how is it connected? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's where the tomb of Seneb-Neb-Af is. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if having a tomb dedicated/made by/for someone establishes their notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. We know it belongs to him; it's got his name on it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe, it's much better to respond to comments as a reply rather than rewriting your initial talk page comment. To reply to your new comment: XOR'easter is not making any kind of claim about Seneb-Neb-Af's notability. They're saying that the tomb could be mentioned in the article Dashur, since that's where the tomb is. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Danke. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear on my stance, I think the tomb could be mentioned there, but that it's not so important or well-reported (at this point) to be worth doing so. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, having looked into this a bit more, I don't think we should redirect this at all, since this is a very new finding that has only just been reported on in popular press. We don't even have a site report yet as far as I can tell? I don't think a mention is due on Dashur, and I don't think anyone searching for this name will be well-served by a redirect, either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ink Awards

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

Non-notable award. References are all announcements of winners and the majority are unreliable, falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate significant coverage that talks about the reward itself. CNMall41 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move: It looks like these should be written as "RedInk Awards". I don't see WP:NEWSORGINDIA really applying here: These are awarded by the Mumbai Press Club, so any reporting is unlikely to be paid. Coverage of almost any journalism award is going to be a little iffy on independence due to sources written by journalists with personal and organisational interests, memberships, and possibly voting participation (although these ones are juried). If the Mumbai Press Club had an article -- and I'm not sure it should -- I'd be happy with a merge to section. In the absence of that ATD, because there is post-event reporting in national sources and the awards presenters have included a Chief Justice of India, a State Governor, a State Chief Minister, and a federal Minister (indicating a particular level of repute)[22][23][24][25][26], and it's reasonable for the awards to [continue to] be listed at recipients' articles and this list article facilitates interlinking, I'm landing on retention (possibly slight WP:IAR). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a good redirect as an WP:ATD but unfortunately one does not exists. "Press Trust of India" and "News Express Service" bylines fit the definition of NEWSORGINDIA 100% though. I am wondering which ones you feel do not fall under that criteria as I would be happy to go back and look (I may have missed something). I think it would be more of WP:ATA as opposed to WP:IAR. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 FIFA Series

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

Don't need separate season article for this, as it's just a bunch of friendly matches without substantial coverage. The sources are mostly just match results rather than significant coverage, so doesn't pass WP:GNG independently from the general FIFA Series article I.e. sources about the history/creation are useful for GNG on the main FIFA Series article, but do not prove that an individual season article is needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep? I don't know, there is enough there, maybe what I would call a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage, but a lot of sources around to digest, I've looked at a couple of them. But from what I see I have nothing against the article. Mine is a pretty weak keep mind you. Govvy (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of it might be resultcruft - but some of it might be best merged to FIFA Series. Geschichte (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure about every single group, but the Croatian knock out group certainly received a lot of substantial coverage at the time. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to FIFA Series - personally I've never heard of this and I'm a big football fan! Shows how lacking the detailed coverage is. Giant Snowman 10:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austral Líneas Aéreas destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:NLIST.

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 largely unsourced, and has been since at least 2011, but the part that is sourced is sourced to old airline-issued timetables, the company website, press releases, enthusiast blogs like airlineroute.net, or to run-of-the-mill articles in trade-press. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

WP:NLIST is failed because none of these sources are independent, third-party, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services this airline offers as a group. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and Argentina. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlético de Madrid (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover a driver's signing, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clube de Regatas do Flamengo (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY, the only sources only cover a test session, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Club Corinthians Paulista (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover an announcment of the first race, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sevilla FC (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only sources only cover a driver's signing and a race report, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Guoan (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only sources only cover race reports, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borussia Dortmund (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only sources only cover race reports, less about the team. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic

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

Basically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Gaza humanitarian crisis.

More importantly, off all the given sources, only a single one (The National) uses the term "epidemic" in its own voice, with 2 more quoting the Gaza Health Ministry's declaration of an epidemic. RS hasn't been using the term epidemic (probably because as of now there haven't been any confirmed cases yet. There are strong fears of a coming epidemic, and polio has been found in the sewage, but thankfully no infections). At the very least the article needs to be considerably shortened, and name changed to "Polio discoveries" or something. Violates Crystal Ball. It's also not being (significantly) covered by RS on its own, but rather as part of the broader crisis. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Middle East. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis - Wouldn't be opposed to recreating the article later if more sources begin to call the Polio issue an epidemic, but a redirect would suffice for right now. Jdcomix (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirecting the current title if the term "epidemic" is not being used by multiple reliable sources would violate WP:NDESC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gaza humanitarian crisis. My first impression is that we should probably redirect. Now to read with care... Yeah, merge with Gaza humanitarian crisis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move or merge. There are plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage, so deleting it isn’t warranted. If kept, a move or rename to 2024 Gaza Strip polio outbreak or the like would be appropriate. I don’t oppose the merger, however the main article could get filled with a lot of more important and less important trivia; see what happened at one time to Palestinian law. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - and expand. Could be broadened to "infectious diseases outbreaks" instead of just polio, but it warrants its own coverage separate from starvation and other issues. FourPi (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/8/16/israel-war-on-gaza-live-children-killed-in-israeli-attack-on-jabalia-camp, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/16/un-chief-calls-for-polio-pause-in-gaza-war-to-tackle-virus and FourPi. Pachu Kannan (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R.S.C. Anderlecht (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Midtjylland (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting CP (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing and the other is now dead. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There maybe enough for some basic form of WP:GNG pass, I found sources, [27] (primary source), [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] (primary) , [33], [34], this one has a few hits on britsonpole.com which might be useful. [35], [36], [37]. Need I go on, there are a lot of hits to digest. There are more online, what kind of WP:BEFORE did you do? Besides, you talk a load of codswallop, I looked at your nominations just now, and the work load you did. It's nothing short than just, I don't like this shit so I am going to nominate all these articles for AfD. I don't disagree there are problems with these articles, but your process and this nomination, and the rest you've done. Well, you should be reported to WP:ANI for the process. You are not here to build an encyclopaedia. Govvy (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off all WP:PRIMARY do not count for notability, thus are all ignored. Reviewing them, this is what I say in WP:RS
- [38] - about the series, which gives more weight for the series, not the team
- [39] - about the partnership between F1 and the eponymous football team, the 'team' has pitiful amount of coverage to it. A regurgitation of article provided below.
- [40] - again WP:PRIMARY - do not count for notability.
- [41] - same as above, another regurgitation of press releases
- [42] - primarily about the series, far less about the series
- [43] - as above, another regurgitation of press releases
- britsonpole.com - same I mentioned below
- [44] is another WP:ROUTINE announcement that a team is retaining a driver for another season, does it assert notability for the team? The operating team is notable, no doubt.
- [45] - another announcement, dubious source. More like a site run by hobbyists/student journalist. Very little weight for WP:RS.
- [46] is about the 2010 season with a tiny bit to promote the races as usual as you would expect in local papers. Not much about the 'teams'
This may help pass in 2010 but this is 2024, so none of these will support the notability of the teams nominated or provide WP:SIGCOV. Given your language here, I shall recommend you to wash your mouth every morning and night with a toilet brush to get rid of those foul language that stains your vocabulary. That way, you could be better than those clowns who congregate at pubs every Saturday afternoon and get drunk till May. BTW, you speak of WP:IDONTLIKEIT given by your response. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure I want to reply to you, but you do know there is nothing wrong with primary sources in an article, primary can be used to back up basic facts. You can use primary and secondary sources together to show a notable point. That is a point about facts matching each other. I honestly don't know why so many people forget this. You can break down the sources I provided all you like, I am just showing there are sources that can be used and some basic form that could pass, at what point did I say keep on the comment above, if I truly want an article to be kept, I would put keep in bold at the beginning and not comment! Govvy (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Kyrgyzstan, London

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

Fails WP:GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Zero secondary sources. Only source provided is government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Kyrgyzstan, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AS Roma (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Budapest

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

Fails WP:GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sources provided do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Hungary, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article charts the significant history of the British Embassy in Budapest, the sources highlight its notability and link with the evacuation of Jews during the holocaust. AusLondoner is on a mindless campaign to delete all embassy pages. Cantab12 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As such it should be kept. Cantab12 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish consul rented space in a bank and declared it diplomatic premises to shelter Jews during the Holocaust. How is this related to the British embassy? AusLondonder (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP* There is a link with the Swiss too who took over the site as a neutral power during WWII. Please stop. Cantab12 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Cantab12 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete unfortunately, many buildings have had to be used to shelter refugees. I don't see any significant coverage that indicates that this was particularly notable that would satisfy GNG. ForksForks (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSV Eindhoven (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Porto (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympique Lyonnais (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray S.K. (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girondins de Bordeaux (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Basel 1893 (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ain (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources, are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China (Superleague Formula team)

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources, are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Frozen Fourteen

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

Trivia without reliable independent sources about it. While it is mentioned in passing on some websites, it hasn't received significant attention, it doesn't eve seem to be mentioned in any books[47]. Fram (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Billboard Hot 100 as an ATD, since it appears verifiable, if not notable. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Way too insignifant detail to be merged to the main Billboard Hot 100 article: if people feel it should be mentioned somewhere, List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones would be a better place. Fram (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, not crazy about this idea either. These charts articles already suffer from some crufty stats listing as it it is. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. Appears to have been invented in a forum thread, never acknowledged by WP:RS. Mach61 12:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a coincidence, no actual significance. Reywas92^Talk 15:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Kapur

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The article has been padded-out with lots of passing mentions of the subject donating to this or that campaign, but the only significant coverage is in Caravan magazine (notably less positive than the current version of the article) and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (essentially an interview). One independent source isn't enough to achieve a neutral point of view. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. CptViraj (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't make articles on projects that are merely "envisioned". Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Decker

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability. I could find limited sources with a Google search to satisfy the inline citations template. Therefore probably fails WP:GNG. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 02:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The "Willy Decker" in this AfD is a completely different one from the one that was the subject of the first AfD. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 02:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who directed a Henze opera world premiere and is listed in Who's Who? is notable. I have no time to look today but will next week unless this is closed by then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistings. More opinions would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference, per what I said before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[48] [49] [50] [51] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the above linked references and the references in the article that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Christie

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NCRIC. A search yields much more hits for someone who appeared on Geordie Shore who may indeed be more notable, so for that reason I oppose redirect of this cricketer's article. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Hong Kong. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be relaxed about a redirect to List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers here - there was a single incoming link from the Geordie Shore chap which indicates there's generally not a major issue here and if necessary a dab page with the two redirects on it can be set up. I'd have thought, however, that the article on CricketCountry would satisfy the last point of SPORTCRIT and there's at least one article on the South China Morning Post from 2016, although it's partly behind a paywall. There's a case that could be made for keeping the article - there's certainly nothing in it that's contentious - there are a lot worse articles than this one that could be brought to AfD. But, again, for me the worst case here is a redirect. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmam Engey

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

Only two potential RS: Guy is RS, the Dina Thanthi source is only cited to a release date change and that seems to be mostly what they publish about movies from what I have seen (could not find the exact article sourced, insufficient info and from 1972). The other cited sources are variously not about topic (Ragunathan), retail (Mossymart), and a list (151 etc). BEFORE found no further RS. Redirect to the director may be a better alternative than deletion, per Mushy Yank, if this discussion doesn't result in Keep. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and India. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cast and director, full article by notable film historian in very reliable newspaper, sources for verification; all in all could be judged enough. A redirect to the director being absolutely warranted in my view, very opposed to deletion (I deproDed the page; same nominator).My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank, could you please point me towards that source if it's online somewhere? I searched and couldn't find it, and everything I could find was extremely sparse with details (hence the PROD and now this). I like to be able to keep articles and make them better if sources exist! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu article cited in the page (the source you call "Guy", I think) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's the one I counted as a reliable source - I was hoping you'd found the Dina Thanthi one (which I couldn't) to make it two RS. Thanks for clarifying! StartGrammarTime (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli Ashkenazi Jews

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

I believe this page should be deleted due to no encyclopedic value and numerous WP:BLP and Original Research violations that make rescuing this page impossible. Whizkin (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further arguments:

Overly Broad and Non Educational: Approximately 40% of Israel's population could be included in this list, making it excessively broad (by the way, note that in modern times many people are second or third generation mixed Ashkenazi/Mizrahi origins which further increases the percentage of people that can be included). Israeli Jews can be much better classified by specific country of origin (and indeed we have such categories). Furthermore broadly categorizing random, secular individuals based on their supposed ethnic origin reduces people's identities to simplistic binary labels that offer no value. For example, the fact that Gilad Shalit is Ashkenazi is completely meaningless.
Vague classification: Jewish identities, particularly in Israel, do not always fit neatly into categories like Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, or Sephardi. These labels are tied to religious traditions that go back hundreds of years and do not necessarily correspond to specific countries of origin. For example, a person of Georgian Jewish descent could be either Ashkenazi or non-Ashkenazi, not to mention the many people that have a mixed heritage.
Inaccurate and Original Research : The vast majority of non-observant Jews on this list do not have reliable sources confirming their classification as Ashkenazi. For many individuals, there is no direct citation that verifies their inclusion in this category. Attempting to infer whether a person is Ashkenazi based on their last name, or even their parent's country of origin constitutes original research. Not to mention that many of the inferences are plain wrong, such as in the cases of Mili Avital and Zefania Carmel. This is also a major BLP violation which alone should result in deleting most of the people on the list.
Offensive and Bordering on Racist: Classifying individuals, particularly secular Jews, and Jews of mixed heritage, as Ashkenazi or Mizrahi/Sephardi without their self-identification can be seen as offensive. The page risks causing harm by labeling people in ways that they may not identify with.

For these reasons, this page is harmful, does not serve a meaningful purpose and should be deleted. Whizkin (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Whizkin (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main point for me is that this list is so overly broad as to be pointless, covering nearly 40% of the Israeli population. Number 5 7 13:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alaexis_¿question? 21:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCHD-CA

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Wyoming. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another remnant of the much looser inclusion standards of 2006. A station that seems to have only operated for ~8 years at most with only national religious services is not going to get significant, if any, coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMAH-LP

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Wyoming. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another remnant of the far looser inclusion standards of 2005, when being FCC-licensed was considered enough to be "notable" with largely little regard as to significant coverage or the potential of same. The parade of national services that are this station's only known programming—albeit without sourcing, anyway—does not exactly point to SIGCOV. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Themes common in gay porn

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_4#Themes common in gay porn. C F A 💬 03:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. C F A 💬 03:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was of questionable value, leading to this discussion. So delete if this is not a useful search term. Do *NOT* merge. Typical porn site category list, sourced to a porn site. No independent RS interest found in search. Encyclopedic content already covered by gay pornography. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a glossary of terms used in pornography, so 'rename and broaden to glossary of pornography (or a similar title) to match the content (many entries are not exclusive to gay porn). Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BizTalkRadio

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

Subject does not contain the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Business. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't not know why this is up for deletion but I vote keep (03:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are issues with the article, but the first course of action should be to correct those instead of deletion. Stereorock (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKRR-LP

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wyoming. Let'srun (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks noble subject (KmTvFan me (talk to me 03:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another remnant of the much looser inclusion standards of 2006. The only known programming was a national religious network and a slate announcing that network had moved to a co-owned station — and all that without sourcing, as it has been tagged as unsourced since 2021. If there was any significant coverage here, there probablly should have been some by now. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Otago

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

Can't find any sources that talk about this flag. The current sources are a passing mention related to the designer's opinion on something else, and flags of the world which is a deprectated source. couldn't find any books, news articles, even on the council website wasn't anything. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying im not saying this flag is inaccurate just saying its not notable enough to have its own article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very odd that it's not on the council website - it is the official flag and is flown outside their headquarters. Also not quite sure why FOTW is a deprecated source - it's still active and currently undergoing a major upgrade. I'll look for more sources. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOTW ->Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Merge into the main Otago article. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not understanding what the problem is. Otago is a region of the South Islands, and the region has a flag, and Wikipedians have written an article about that flag. Wikipedia's flag collection includes many articles on regional territorial flags. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the flag doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability to have its own article, there are literally no sources that I could find TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it looks like most if not all the sources are print only :/ They do exist, though. And while I hesitate to use OTHERSTUFF as an argument, I'd agree that if other regional authorities' official flags are notable enough for articles, it seems like a double-standard to have this one face deletion. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into the article for Otago. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Otago not enough notability nor enough content for a stand alone article for this. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is by far the most sensible option for this article. The flag exists, it relates to Otago and therefore should be included in that article.NealeWellington (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Yudong

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

I can’t see any in depth coverage in RIS to indicate that this subject is notable. There may be sources in Chinese I didn’t manage to turn up - if not this article should go. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and China. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have been finding Chinese language sources for this subject, who seems to be a pretty famous director. I haven't yet found any RS that demonstrate individual notability, but I'll look again later today and report my findings or not findings as applicable. Our article is longer than his Baidu page, which seems kinda sus. Folly Mox (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some sources I found:
1. Wang, Xiaoye 王小野 (2021-02-18). ""数字文创展——来自四维空间的线圈世界"展览开幕：用科技与艺术传递光与爱" ["Digital Cultural and Creative Exhibition - Coil World from Four-Dimensional Space" Exhibition Opens: Delivering Light and Love with Technology and Art]. china.com [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
  The article provides a passing mention. The article notes: "中央新影集团著名导演朱昱东". From Google Translate: "Zhu Yudong, a famous director from China Film Group"
2. "电影《海霞》要拍续集了" [The movie "Haixia" is going to have a sequel]. Wenzhou Business Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2012-08-30. p. 文娱 14.
  The article notes: "月中旬到10月初开拍。执导此部电影的总导演为中央电视台副台长、中央新影集团总裁高峰。导演为中央电视台科教节目制作中心导演朱昱东，他的电影剧本《达西的季节》、《他们》曾分别获得国家广播电影电视总局夏衍杯剧本奖、中国台湾“行政院新闻局”优良剧本征选大"
  From Google Translate: "...Filming will start from mid-October to early October. The chief director of this movie is Gao Feng, deputy director of CCTV and president of China Film Group. The director is Zhu Yudong, director of CCTV's Science and Education Program Production Center. His movie scripts "Darcy's Season" and "They" have won the Xia Yan Cup Script Award of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television and the Excellent Script Selection Competition of the "Executive Yuan News Bureau" of Taiwan, China..."
Cunard (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Chinese Wikipedia article was deleted in December 2010 after a sparsely attended discussion at zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2021/12/04#朱昱东. The sources I found suggest Zhu Yudong is notable but are not by themselves enough for him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. If more sources cannot be found, I would recommend delete. I hope more sources can be found. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking into this. Mccapra (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chi-won (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Traumnovelle (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bids for the 2040 Summer Olympics

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

Article was created despite there being a declined draft at Draft:Bids for 2040 Summer Olympics. Also, the bidding process for the 2040 Summer Olympics has not even started yet, so this is still WP:TOOSOON. GTrang (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge usable content then delete Metalhead11000 (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or selectively merge to the draft. Far too soon for an article. C F A 💬 02:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge usable content into the draft then delete. I brought up the fact that the 2040 Olympics are over a decade and a half away on the talk page just before, and bidding likely won't start until sometime around 2026, so definitely too soon. Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a site for speculation. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bids for the Olympic Games. StanSpencer (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just mentioning that it really doesn't matter that there was a draft that was declined. Draft space is optional and they're allowed to disagree with the decline reason of WP:TOOSOON. I'm not sure I agree with them, but I just wanted to mention it so nobody passing by gets the wrong idea. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Only argument for the removal of this article from mainspace is WP:TOOSOON. Article subject has already significant coverage with the number of references presented, and there is no doubt that the subject will be notable in the future. That being said, moving article to draftspace is what should happen, as there is no point deleting this article for the exact same thing to be rewritten at a later date. Mn1548 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a draft at Draft:Bids for 2040 Summer Olympics. Two drafts on the same topic is not a good idea, which is why the best option would be to selectively merge whatever isn't in the draft. C F A 💬 14:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Karkera

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Basic resume/cv material. Nothing near even 1 GNG source. This closest thing to even 1 GNG source is an interview (reference #5 circa August 15th). Tagged by others for wp:notability since February. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find a bunch of PR items in my search, nothing about this fellow in RS. Sourcing now in the article is about patents and various funding announcements, neither of which help prove notability. Not meeting BLP requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, India, and California. C F A 💬 03:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Antònia Mínguez

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

Suggest redirect to List of FC Barcelona Femení players. None of the sources in the article focus on the subject specifically (fails WP:SIGCOV), just as one member of a team. The team was notable, and several individual members are independently notable – but Mínguez does not appear to be one of them. I feel like WP:SPORTBASIC applies without needing to consider the weight of a potential role in women's history, as the sources that do mention her as part of the team, don't suggest she had any greater role than simply being part of the team.

Furthermore, parts of the article that are about the team and their historic first match, appear to be copy-pasted from other articles about notable teammates (e.g. Lolita Ortiz), while the paragraph about the 50th anniversary of the match appears to be close paraphrasing – if not direct machine-translated copyvio – of the source (a primary source that is the main source used in the article, too). All in all, there is more focus on the match and the team and passing mentions that Mínguez was involved. Not sufficient for an article. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Spain. C F A 💬 03:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. @Kingsif: It is behind a paywall, but this 2021 article in El Periódico is focused on Maria Antònia Minguez and Sandra Paños gets it over the line for me. There are also other articles cited in Catalan Wikipedia worth checking out. Looks like not enough WP:BEFORE. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've read that source, Mínguez and Paños discuss how Mínguez joined the club (ad in newspaper) and then just about how the environment of women's football has changed. It's not about her or her career, it's just including her in a story of how Barça Femení grew from where it started to be in the Champions League. And probably only including her because the current player they got to take part was the goalkeeper. As for the Catalan WP article, it has fewer sources and they're just some of the same. Trust me, I've done BEFORE.
Like, this isn't to say Mínguez was not important for the team, but that she does not meet Wikipedia notability standards as she is only ever mentioned in sources in relation to "DYK Barça Femení was founded in 1970 and she was the goalie". Especially when that is all we can say of her notability, we should likewise keep our coverage in relation to the 1970 Barça Femení team. Other players from that team were much more actively involved in e.g. management and promotion, and are more worthy BIO/BLP candidates, but that does not mean every player warrants their own (largely copy-and-paste of the generic team details) bio. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, unless better sourcing can be found. Giant Snowman 14:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I probably would like to see more in-depth sourcing, but what's there is okay for me. I don't see anything wrong with the article. Govvy (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Trey

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

Procedural nomination on J2009j's behalf as they had some technical issues. I am neutral and just re-filing this.

"I believe this article does not meet any notability criteria. There is 1 barely reliable billboard article that can be considered a real source. All the articles are interviews, press, releases, and on some random sites. I do not understand how it was even accepted in the first place.

For example, there are sources like 4 "Ryan Trey Songs, Albums, Reviews, Bio & More |..." AllMusic. Retrieved July 29, 2024. or P, Milca (August 25, 2018). "Ryan Trey Previews "August" Album With "Mutual Butterflies"". HotNewHipHop. Retrieved July 29, 2024., or sources 8, 2, 3 - those are all interviews, or press releases. Those are not national magazines, but some sites with news online. Then most of the sources from 13- to 24 are literally interviews on online news sites. All, except an article on Billboard. So why are those considered "reliable" sources? " Star Mississippi 01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Missouri. Star Mississippi 01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I generally prefer not to engage in AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussions, as my focus is on improving and creating articles for notable subjects. However, I feel compelled to address the nomination of this article. Nominating an article simply because an editor's draft was rejected seems unwarranted. The sources cited, such as the one from BET, provide significant coverage and should not be dismissed as mere interviews.[52] These sources, along with others, clearly demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I believe the article is well-supported and merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Afro 📢Talk! 07:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I never nominated anything before. J2009j (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally fine. It happens to all of us at one time or another. I tried to fix it but realized it would just be easier to delete and nominate on your behalf. Star Mississippi 01:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 2,3 and 19 are directly about this individual and have been identified as RS by CiteHighlighter. I think we have more than enough with what's given. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3 is a review, which is a paragraph long personal opinion.

Source 2 is an interview, and interview cannot be used as a reliable source.

Source 19 - is an interview again and it does not establish notability. It is what a person says about themselves. J2009j (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Credit Data

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

Non-notable, could only find primary sources LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found some academic journal articles to establish notability for Global Credit Data and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep organization is a key player in the financial industry, offering extensive credit risk data that is crucial for financial institutions and researchers. Its contributions and collaborations with major banks around the world underline its significance and notability. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how notability works; notability isn't equivalent to importance. See WP:N. Janhrach (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are available to meet WP:GNG etc 92.40.196.243 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've improved the article's structure. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing either points to reports published by this organization or are PRIMARY sources. None of the sources provide in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters above can point to any particular page/paragraph in their sources which meets our criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company's data products are cited in at least 361 studies, including some studies in very good journals. Most of the time, Google Scholar does not pick up on data citations, so I think this is a pretty good indication that that the data created by the company are in widespread use. Most of these publications will describe the data in a standalone section, so I consider this to be significant independent coverage of the data product. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company doesn't inherit notability from its product. The article is clearly about the company, not the product. Janhrach (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some proper source analysis rather than statements of 'I found x source' or 'x source is available', please elaborate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources listed is a valid reason for GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Keep GCD (Global Credit data is active in this nich Credit Risk make, see our more recent collaboration/Publication with ECB https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2954~1d1f8942c9.en.pdf?59655971c5e2084fe32ab99288b1eb6b and our start of collaboration with UNEP FI https://globalcreditdata.org/unepfi-esg-climaterisk/ . We also have annual collaboration with ICC Trade Register https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/icc-trade-register-report/. For all our recent activities, initiative and publication, you can saw it on our linkedin webpages https://www.linkedin.com/company/globalcreditdata

Warm Regards,MichaelDhaenens (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources or confirmation of routine business activities, they don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelDhaenens: Are you from the company? If yes, read WP:COI, please. Janhrach (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn is hardly a reliable source, saying we and our implies you work for the company, Michael. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Links I find are in trade journals, PR items or brief mentions [53], none of which help. Sources 1 and 4 now in the article are tagged as non-RS by Cite Highlighter, so non-reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're associated with the company, you must declare any conflict of interest here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Oaktree b. Under NCORP, we have a higher standard for notability. While "they get cited a lot" or "people use their work" might fly for some people (see, for example, NACADEMIC), it does not establish notability for corporations. Brief mentions, even in academic journals, are not significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in google news seems rather routine and would not satisfy WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:20, 8 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, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Asked by the admin a few comments above to review sources: the ECB is a government body, usually considered a primary source, then we have the company's own website, which is also primary... The only decent sourcing in the article is Source 2, where a peer-reviewed journal uses data from the company to analyze things (which is fine I suppose, it's not directly about the company however). None of the sources presented are helpful and most aren't even useful for the various reasons listed in this comment. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to comment on the remainder of the sources given above: a trade register and linkedin, neither of which are acceptable for proving notability. I'm afraid none of the new sources presented can be helpful in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

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

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Lists, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are reliably documented, and the list is too long to be in one article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOT. This isn't a valid keep argument and doesn't address the concern that this essentially just a massive database copy/dump. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:COPYVIO I have to agree with Fram: making an inferior copy of someone else's database is really not within our purview. There's probably some WP:NOT guideline covering that aspect, but the fact that it is a copy of only some of the fields doesn't ameliorate that it is a comprehensive copy of every entry. And without that copying there's really nothing here, as it is the sole source for it would appear well over 90% of the entries. I have to think that it's not possible to source this otherwise without repeating the other author's original research. I wouldn't have a problem with the obviously much smaller list of surviving mills, for which the copied database could be used as a source for certain information. But in this case we are just stealing someone else's work, even if we aren't stealing all of it and that theft was not the intent. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I contest the claim of copyvio. As for the one source claim, the DHM database itself draws on many sources. Thus the lists draw on many sources too. For info, the Dutch Wikipedia lists cover all windmills, though they have split by existing and "vanished" mills. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but even though I agree with not retaining a copy of the database, facts aren't copyrightable, only the presentation of those facts. Still though, what's essentially a copy is still essentially a copy, and not something we should be hosting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs further discussion and contribution from other editors to reach a clear consensus. Would encourage editors to consider neutral notices at neutral venues to seek further input, if they feel it is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it meets WP:NLIST it still goes against what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. A list of every single windmill in the Netherlands that is just a copy of a database is not within the scope of the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]