Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 10

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreet Bedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article refunded after soft deletion, but still fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The vast majority of sources are tabloid coverage, which doesn't count as WP:SIGCOV under GNG. Other sources include primary sources like the subject's own book or WP:INTERVIEWS, or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails all criteria WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP. No WP:SIGCOV. Sources are poor to unreliable WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to insufficient coverage. Most of the coverage is unreliable. Vorann Gencov (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage Hill, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An area on the west side of Brazil, I'm not getting reading on whether it was ever considered a town unto itself. What I can see of it looks like maybe a neighborhood, maybe just a locale.... Right now it's just a phrase on a map and the name of a cemetery. Mangoe (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current only sources is the GNIS, which has been ruled unreliable/not counted as official legal recognition by WP:NGEO. Likely just a hill. OpenStreetMap puts the label right next to the cemetery, on the outskirts of Brazil, Indiana. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Cottage Hill was one end of an interurban streetcar line to Harmony, Indiana.^[1] that opened in 1893 and probably went out of business in the 1920s or 1930s. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get information on this line, without a great deal of success. Everyone talking about it says that the east end was in Harmony; but they they don't all say that the west end was in Cottage Hill. I neve found a source that showed a map of the line. And again, this is a passing reference: stations and stops ae not the same thing as towns. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a particularly bad nomination; a simple newspaper search will generate hundreds of articles and mentions. See, for example, just whipping up a random something-something quickly for our purposes here, THIS town coverage from a special correspondent, datelined Cottage Hill, from the South Bend Tribune of June 25, 1908. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS from a 1911 issue of the Brazil Daily Times mentions a "Cottage Hill band" giving a box supper at "Cottage Hill school". Carrite (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these more or less passing references says that Cottage Hill is a town unto itself and not just a neighborhood of Brazil. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Carrite. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete my search shows a gazetteer from the 1860s showing it was listed as a post office. [1] on page 530 talks about the person who bought a farm and cleaned the place up and then created the Cottage Hill cemetery using his surname as a possessive pronoun. I'm also not convinced by the newspaper clippings which have been presented so far. One is from South Bend and all the other small places it lists are from the greater South Bend region, but this is on the other side of Indiana, and the second just shows there was a school named Cottage Hill. I'm willing to be convinced, but I think this was a post office and cemetery and farm based on my research, and I typically will tend to vote Keep on these things. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment leaning delete.
  • I can't find a Cottage Hill in the microfilmed Clay Co post office records.
  • it don't see it on the 1915 county map, altho maybe I missed it.
  • it's only mentioned as "Cottage Hill Cemetery" in the 1909 county history
  • can't really find any news coverage discussing it as a populated place at any point
  • It might have been a preexisting location on the National Road but finding no evidence of that (yet?)
  • The interurban stop probably doesn't qualify it for notability
  • I'd be open to a redirect to Dick Johnson Township or a move to Cottage Hill Cemetery but meh.
  • Update: I skimmed a history of early transport in Indiana and no sign of Cottage Hill just the discouraging comment "The country lying between Terre Haute and Indianapolis was an almost unbroken wilderness, the settlements were separated by extensive and gloomy forests, and only a few villages were scattered along the line of the National Road. The railroad left this latter highway at Plainfield, from which point to Greencastle but a few settlements were to be found, and beyond that place for a number of miles conditions were even worse." There's a map that includes Brazil as a stop but Cottage Hills makes no appearance.
  • Hahaha Cunningham Tavern on the National Road burned down 1855/1856. So maybe something!

jengod (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I regret to inform that this location is notable, or at least is the setting of a folksy and charming yarn about Abe Lincoln in 1858. I have expanded the history section and will add a touch more from the 20th century shortly. jengod (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Carrite; and per WP:NTEMP. Shotgunheist ^💬 16:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus that sources are inadequate to establish notability, for now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadakiyans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I was not able to verify the existence of this dynasty - the four references used in the article are also difficult to verify. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Semsûrî (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 4, p. 227: "In other towns, too, Arab chieftains came to build their castles and dominated the inhabitants ... in Urmiya Sadaqa b. 'Ali, a client of Azd". See also https://iranicaonline.org/articles/rawwadids. I cannot verify the article as a whole or confirm if this is a notable dynasty, but it does not appear to be a fabrication. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sourcing is weak, and does not sufficiently convey the idea of a "dynasty"; if the individuals involved are notable, they should have their own article, but their three-generation "dynasty" is almost certainly not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason that there is so little knowledge about them is that they lived over 1,000 years ago and only ruled for around 50 years in a region wich was made up of villages, lots of mountains and a few small cities. Besides that, they seem to be the first Kurdish dynasty in History, so little information is to be expected. Karkafs Desiderium (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that is why they are not notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd love to hear more feedback from editors who are knowledgeable about this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Two of the references are from journals which are the subject of articles in the English Wikipedia: Revue du monde musulman and Revue des études islamiques, and the third cites the first edition of Encyclopaedia of Islam. References do not have to be online to be valid, but editors with access to a university library might be able to access online or printed versions of the references. The fourth reference, perhaps added in error, was in a battle infobox that another editor removed. It was to the book The sword of Persia : Nader Shah, from tribal warrior to conquering tyrant, about Nader Shah, who was ruler of Persia much later, from 1736 to 1747. That fourth reference is no longer in the particle, but I think the three remaining references are good ones. I think the article is adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't know what content is covered by the references and what is unsourced. The third and last reference is on the fifth line of the article. Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eastmain fyi, out-of-copyright French-language sources are often available on Gallica. Here is the page cited in the article. Revue des Études Arméniennes issues are available for download here. I'm not sure what makes either of these good references for the purposes of notability. -- asilvering (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No mention in modern scholarship. I was able to access one of the sources (from 1910): [2] And there, Sadaka ibn Ali is a passing mention, where we learn that he was a "client of the Azd tribe" and that he took Urmia and built a castle. Most of the content in the Wikipedia article is unreferenced, so I fail to see how this article can be considered adequately sourced. The article title itself is WP:OR as I failed to find any potential variations of it (let alone the form seen here). The source I linked above does not mention a dynasty, and I very much doubt the other two similarly-aged sources include anything close to that. The most inclusionist choice here would be creating Sadaka ibn Ali's bio, disregarding the small amount of available sources and content. Another inclusionist choice would be adding the sourced parts about Sadaka ibn Ali to a relevant article such as Azd. But in any case, "Sadakiyans" should not redirect anywhere as it doesn't appear to be a term precedented in the sources. Aintabli (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the claim this was a "dynasty" appears to be original research. The mention in al-Baladhuri is As for Urmiyah, 1 it was an ancient city in re- 331' gard to which the Magians (Ma jus} assert that their founder Zaradusht was from it. Sadakah ibn-'Ali ibn-Sadakah ibnDinar, the freedman of the Azd, made war against its inhabitants, finally entering and subduing it. He and his brothers built in it some castles. The Encyclopaedia of Islam citation appears to be referring to these three sentences. And while Sadaka ibn Ali's existence has clear attestations, the information about his descendants appears completely unsourced. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like the two above editors I can't find anything that verifies the information in this article, or even its title, beyond the bits about Sadaka ibn Ali. I've turned up enough Turkish-language sources to suggest that he is notable, but that's as far as I've got. -- asilvering (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury belief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page does not meet notability as it is a concept essentially by a single author, and there is already a subheading on the Rob_K._Henderson_(author) page concerning this idea. Any content (if there is any) of additional value can be placed there and this article can be made into a redirection. A previous editor requested deletion, but that was reverted without discussion. There is little to no support for this article on the associated talk page. PaigePhault (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Psychology, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• this page might incorporate more perspectives cross referencing, ACTIVISM, SOCIAL INJUSTICE, PRIVILEGE, POSTURING Comcredo (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology is (correctly) attributed to Rob Henderson. However, the concept is much older, and may be used in many other contexts than family structure.

More important, it is used all the time, and it is quite important, to understand the conflict between materialistic and moral ideologies characterising modern debate. Gamle gnavne mænd (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The concept has been the subject of a New York Times arcticle (see https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/opinion/campus-protests-progressive-henderson.html). The concept can thus reasonably be said to be in wide circulation, and it is useful to have a page describing it. 2A00:23CC:B720:AC01:3588:782F:4F03:50B9 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coined by a single author (as most terms are), but apparently adopted in academic writing. --bender235 (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term was coined in 2019 according to Henderson in the NYT opinion piece he just published. Keeping in mind [[WP::SET]] there are only 50 hits for that term, and if you search without Henderson the number drops in half. A cursory scan of those remaining mentions does not provide much evidence of independent support for this term. Maybe a 'keep' supporter has the patience to dig through this to find one? PaigePhault (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The mention that this is a "concept by a single author" is puzzling, as many articles would have to be deleted under that criterion. Perhaps the nominator meant to suggest that this concept has not been discussed by other authors, but this is clearly not the case. The notion of a "luxury belief" (or at least the term itself) is recent, but has already received widespread coverage. Henderson himself has discussed it in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Telegraph, the Times, etc. Restricting ourselves to articles independent of the subject (i.e. not written by Henderson), on a quick search I found the following articles where the term "luxury belief" is the primary focus:

• A new book rebukes the “luxury beliefs” of America’s upper class
• What ‘Luxury Beliefs’ Reveal About the Ruling Class
• Good Marriages Are Good. Bad Marriages Are, Well, Bad.
• The Political Right Has Luxury Beliefs, Too
• Forget your handbag, the latest status symbol du jour is your luxury beliefs
• Education’s Enduring Love Affair with ‘Luxury Beliefs’

Astaire (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of those not written by Henderson, it look like 100% of them are about Henderson or his book. This supports the argument that the citations and supporting material all belong on Henderson biography page with a redirect. Making that page better and more encyclopedic and it's better than having a poorly sourced article. PaigePhault (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki articles about a notable concept coined by a particular person deserve room to breathe beyond the person's own page. The articles I listed above are not "100% about Henderson or his book" as you claim. They certainly mention the book as a way of introducing a novel terminology to the reader, but they go beyond parroting Henderson's own discussion of the concept and make the term their own. This article argues that right-wingers also have their own luxury beliefs, in contrast to Henderson who mainly focused on the left wing. This article disputes Henderson's characterization of marriage as a luxury belief. This article analyzes luxury beliefs in public school education, which Henderson did not discuss. There is clearly enough substance here for an independent page. Astaire (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep. There does appear to be scholarly uptake of this concept sufficient to justify having an article. BD2412 T 00:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Someone somewhere has to come up with any particular term and put it in writing, why would this be a strike against inclusion? There is substantial coverage and usage of luxury beliefs, in manners independent of and divergent from Henderson's own applications, throughout RS. It's certainly not just Henderson himself that is working with and applying the term. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bottom line is that it passes the WP:SIGCOV bar. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient sources. The fact that the sources attribute the term's origin to Henderson is evidence that it is a notable concept, rather than a few scattered attestations with different meanings. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Serious, sustained coverage in reliable sources. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Henderson may have coined the term but there is lots of scholarly engagement with the concept beyond his own writing. See here from Samahita (UC Dublin), Barry (Male Psychology), Anomaly and Faria (Cambridge), Green (Public Policy and Management), Smith, Atkins (PN Review), Dzenis and Faria (Journal of Political Ideologies), and more. Plenty of WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG tests of sourcing and a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition to Reduce Spending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm cleaning up articles tagged with puffery and advert. This one seems to be sourced with sources controlled by the founder, and is beyond saving. Any independent coverage is mostly about the founder. It doesn't even seem to be around anymore, per the web site. A merge and redirect looks to be the best path. See earlier deletion discussion, with a similar suggestion, where sources were equally poor but standards seemed to be lower. Ticoeditor (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ticoeditor (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional for an (apparently defunct) group. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riyadh School of Tourism and Hospitality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Stub about a proposed future institute based entirely on PR. I don’t think this organisation is yet notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Education, and Saudi Arabia. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rakan Daqar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no Reliable Sources at all. Untamed1910 (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could not find any reliable sources and it fails WP:GNG and should be deleted Untamed1910 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: The creator and the only contributor has been CU-blocked. The page should have been protected from IPs removing the speedy deletion tag until it would be reviewed. I'm not sure if this was recreated here and merits salt, but in the Simple English Wikipedia, it was deleted for 4 times and salted twice: [4] Aintabli (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli: You may be right, but Ponyo, the CU who made the blocks, did not say what other accounts, if any, had been used, so it's impossible for mere mortals such as you and me to know whether a block was being evaded at the time when the article was created. JBW (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I did not think of that when voting although I should have. Aintabli (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, really can't find any reliable and independent sources about him to count towards wikinotability. Aintabli (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (1) I checked the cited sources, with the aid of Google translate, as I can't read Persian. At least one of them is on a site selling Rakan Daqar's work, and at least one of them is on a site which describes itself as a "public relations" site. None of them gives substantially more information about Rakan Daqar than the fact that his books have been published. (2) In case there are good sources out there which haven't been cited in the article, I searched for information on Google, using the Persian form of Rakan Daqar's name. I found more of the same kind of thing, plus the Wikipedia article, Facebook, a blog, etc. In short, I was unable to find any substantial coverage of him anywhere, in any kind of source, reliable or otherwise. JBW (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deleted at a prior AfD as per WP:TOOSOON. Bringing it here once more to see if editors agree on keeping it. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: It's clearly too early. This could have been speedy deleted as a recreation of content that was opposed by a majority in the last AFD.--Gan Favourite (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too early and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. RangersRus (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mesterfinalen#2019. ✗plicit 23:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Mesterfinalen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable cancelled football match with very little WP:IMPACT, other than that the competition did not resume again after the cancellation. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mesterfinalen#Editions#2019. It's a possible valid WP:STUB, place holder page with information, but I don't see much point off whats on the main article, so I suggest a redirect as it's covered what happened on the main page. Govvy (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 15:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Akter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable politician who has never held an elected office. Coverage does meet the requirement for WP:GNG and easily fails WP:NPOL. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lucky Akter's Wikipedia page should not be removed for several reasons:

  Notability: Lucky Akter has gained significant attention and recognition for her role in the 2013 Shahbagh Movement, which was a pivotal event in Bangladesh's recent history. Her activism and leadership have had a substantial impact on the political and social landscape of the country.

  Public Interest: As a prominent activist, Lucky Akter's actions and contributions are of interest to the public. Documenting her life and work provides valuable information to those researching contemporary Bangladeshi politics and social movements.Historical

  Significance: The Shahbagh Movement is a critical chapter in Bangladesh's history. As a leading figure in this movement, Lucky Akter's contributions help contextualize and understand the broader implications and outcomes of the movement.

  Media Coverage: Her activities and statements have been covered by both national and international media, adding to her notability and the verifiability of the information available about her.

  Representation: Having a Wikipedia page for Lucky Akter ensures representation of female activists and leaders from South Asia, contributing to a more diverse and inclusive record of historical and contemporary figures.

  These points align with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and verifiability, making a strong case for the retention of her page. Benzir A. Shawon (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  https://journals.openedition.org/vibrant/2784 Benzir A. Shawon (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this URL for her mention in journals: https://journals.openedition.org/vibrant/2784 Benzir A. Shawon (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Communist Party of Bangladesh is a registered party in the Election Commission of Bangladesh and Lucky Akter is a central committee member of that party. Benzir A. Shawon (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• comment There appears to be an undeclared conflict of interest here. Benzir A. Shawon describes themselves as a leader of the BSU, which Lucky Akter is (or was) president of. Before I removed it, the article was full of unsourced detail like her date and place of birth, educational history, height, marriage, child, when she joined organizations, and what she experienced there. If that information didn't come from reliable secondary sources, where did it come from?

A couple of good sources are cited ([5] and [6]), but many of the others are written by her or are press releases. It's okay to cite such sources occasionally for details you can't find in better sources, but they don't contribute to notability and there's no reason to cite multiple versions of one announcement. It's also essential that the sources support the content where they're cited, which many don't do at present. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources updated. Benzir A. Shawon (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• comment and delete – I agree with the comment about the conflict of interest. Look at the information accompanying the photograph. The photographer, who took the picture three years ago, just happens to be the article creator, too. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Ira Leviton (talk)
• Delete Unelected candidates for office are not automatically considered notable, and she doesn't seem to meet GNG. Also, "representation of female activists and leaders from South Asia" is not a valid reason to maintain a page on Wikipedia. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable politician Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estate jewelry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating for article for deletion because there are no references and Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics Visual arts --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Permastub, WP:NOTDICT. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. The nominator might not have done WP:BEFORE properly. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT, and the term is nearly self-explanatory to anyone who knows what "estate" means. Newly-added references are not about estate jewelry as a distinct concept but different examples of the term being used in different contexts. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTDICT. I can't see this having any chance of expansion. What more is there to say about the subject? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, just a (bad) dictdef. The existence of attestations that show that sometimes, jewelry is sold at estate sales, means nothing for notability. The definitions in the sources are different as well. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcerer (operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article cites no sources, couldn't find anything to verify notability Anwon (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Anwon (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cant find anything on web or google scholar either. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is unsourced, and makes no claim of importance or significance. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unable to find adequate sourcing for this Linux Distro, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antslive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable musical artist. Still has a long journey to get to notability MaximumRespect! MrFixer200 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. MaximumRespect! MrFixer200 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems like plenty of coverage: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Geschichte (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Almost TOOSOON. Looks like he just became a musician in the last year or so... These are from a RS per Project Albums [13], [14], just not enough coverage yet to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Geschichte, see also [15], [16]. If kept, it should be renamed to AntsLive. Wikishovel (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second the proposal on moving the page title, as the guy's name has the capital L in the middle. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the RS coverage identified above, significant play on BBC national radio per [17]&[18]&[19], and nomination for a notable award per [20]. ResonantDis_tortion 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources significant coverage identified in this discussion. He also passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 8 for winning a notable award at the 2023 UK Music Video Awards and being nominated for another at the MOBO Awards, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article needs improvement, but the rapper is getting coverage from reliable sources as found by the voters above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With such prominent media coverage and award nominations, it's hard to argue against this artist's notability. The article needs improvement, for sure, but it seems unfair to delete the article. Waqar💬 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the references provided by Geschichte, The subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, including prominent media and national radio. He has also been nominated for and won notable awards, meeting WP:ent criteria. The article needs improvement, but the existing coverage clearly establishes notability. Therefore, the article should be retained. Master rollo (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards Floralbergamot (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the subject has received virtually no coverage in reliable sources. Based on the contents of the article, such as using the subject's personal website as a source numerous times and directing the reader to articles archived on the subject's personal website, it was possibly created as a result of self-promotion. Floralbergamot (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not quite notable activist, coverage is mostly in articles she's written, or stuff about spats she's having with one person or another...[21]. I don't see notability with a lack of sourcing as well. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a bigoted attack. The page is defaced all the time. She's a published author cited by others. This should NOT be removed 67.253.77.78 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I created the prior deletion proposal for this article when I came across it and it was poorly sourced, mostly with links to the subject’s blog, and seemed very likely an act of self-promotion. The deletion proposal was not accepted at that time, and so I have tried to improve the quality of this page with biographical information on her background and education. Even then I have had to rely on primary sources, such as the subject’s answers in interviews for a non-peer reviewed community history project. I still believe the subject falls very short of Wikipedia’s standards of notability for, which are very clear. The closest the subject comes to notability is authoring two chapters in a self-published book with other non-notable individuals. Wikipedia’s notability standard for academics is for those who have made an outstanding contribution. Outside of the academy, none of her activity meets the basic criteria for notable people. QueerRigor (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while sourcing needs to improve, I think this subject falls under WP:ANYBIO. The Hypocrite Reader interview is substantive as is this podcast interview.--User:Namiba 22:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The linked Evergreen Review podcast averages under 100 listens per episode. The episode interviewing the subject has only amassed 550 listens in the three years since it was published.

  Both it and the Hypocrite Reader piece are interviews. Such primary sources, per the notability standard, “may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.” QueerRigor (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Kayal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable for a page. The sources are not reliable MaximumRespect! MrFixer200 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. MaximumRespect! MrFixer200 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2409:4073:95:7E50:0:0:857:A8AC (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A7, G11, G5, take your pick. It's spam for an unremarkable physician, by this week's sockpuppet of Btw Santhosh, and larded as usual with Santhosh's dire news-skinned blogs. Wikishovel (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Wikishovel , please kindly check newly added References !! and please close Articles for deletion/Ankit Kayal if its meeting wiki guidelines द्वारा (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  kindly check https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934280/ द्वारा (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  kindly check newly added References !! द्वारा (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No knocks against him, but he's not a notable physician, academic, or person. Ira Leviton (talk)
• Delete: From what I can see, most of the references provided are promotional and/or are self-published (you can clearly see from the last and first names of research articles) that are not independent of the subject. HarukaAmaranth 02:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as nom and points made above, certainly not notable as yet. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney_Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Actor that fails to meet the notability guidelines of WP:ENT: Does not have significant roles in multiple notable productions, nor have they made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The only reliable secondary source about the subject relates to how this pornographic actor went to Iran, posted some photos on social media, and has cause a social media controversy online. This doesn't establish notability as an entertainer, and is exclusively be tied to a single event that is largely unrelated to the subject's profession as an entertainer. Davidwbaker (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). However the torrent of coverage W. Wright received for her political opinions shows her notability as porn actress is recognised outside WP and outside industry/adult coverage. That's why I think the article could be retained. NB-Coverage is international and includes reliable media, Guardian, Al Jazeera, Euronews, Hindustan Times, and so on. Despite this being limited in time, my !vote is based on the fact that it confirms her more general notability (since PORNBIO has been "cancelled"). (Note: I am the one who DPDd the page- same nominator, as I didn't judge deletion uncontroversial). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Israel, and Palestine. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets GNG with the Guardian and the AP source. Coverage in a few different news sources [22] as well. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Coverage of her persists as she visits Syria: [23] Aintabli (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. Restored the section on her career that was missing to make the article complete. gidonb (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: They've gotten a lot of press for their political views, not just for their work in the adult industry. This shows they're notable outside of that world. Plus, they've been covered by major news outlets like The Guardian and Al Jazeera. That kind of coverage is pretty significant. Waqar💬 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The fact that the nominator tried to delete this article through PROD is a disgrace. PROD should ONLY be used when no opposition to deletion is expected. In this discussion I see not even one person who supports delete. gidonb (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you assume good intent, you must conclude that I expected no opposition to deletion, which is truly the case.

  I am honestly surprised that a non-notable entertainer becomes notable when there's a social media controversy about going to Iran. I don't think she meets WP:ENT nor WP:GNG. She is a non-notable person who plays a major role in a single minor incident. This doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me.

  So, yes, I used PROD, expecting no opposition. I moved it to the Talk page, tagged the author, and waited for some time for other editors to comment. No one did. So I went with AfD.

  However, I see that my judgment of what is or is not notable doesn't agree with the unanimity here, and I'll be more careful in the future when proposing articles for deletion. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of course is not that of bad intent. Just poor judgement. When you do not have even the beginning of a case to delete, one should NEVER prod. Thank you for using PROD more carefully in the future. gidonb (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zang Toi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

Very questionable notability based on a lack of WP:RS Amigao (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Fashion, Malaysia, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 4 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!} 19:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Land Use Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am struggling to find significant contemporary or historical references to SLUF. Clearly it did exist in the early part of the 21st century - but I am not sure of its notability. Perhaps others can find material to justify its retention. As an example - https://www.ordaethiopia.org/index.php/about-us- mentions SLUF as a network that it was part of, but gives no details. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Ethiopia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 3 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!} 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonhlanhla Joye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a social entrepreneur, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for entrepreneurs. The attempted notability claim here, that she founded an organization, would be fine if the article were reliably sourced to WP:GNG-worthy coverage about her in real media of record, but this as written is referenced far, far too heavily to primary source content self-published by organizations she's directly affiliated with, and shows very little evidence of third-party coverage about her in independent GNG-worthy sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and South Africa. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete: Should be notable, but there just isn't much coverage... A PBS interview here [37] and a brief mention here in a French article [38]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 4 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!} 19:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CDK Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All sources link to a single viral moment of them performing a Gotye song, rather than any meaningful coverage. Article has had puffery issues in the past. Doesn't really seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY outside of a singular viral moment that got a modicum of coverage. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Dance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:NORG. This is spammy also at articles that lead to the page so a thorough cleanup along with the deletion is much appreciated. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 08:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Bassett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage -- analysis about the significance of their work, evidence of winning a notable journalism award, and on and so forth.
You don't establish a journalist as notable by referencing the article to sources where she's the bylined author of content about other things, you establish a journalist as notable by referencing the article to sources where she's the written-about subject of content written by other people. But this is referenced entirely to the self-published websites of her employers or other organizations that she's been directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage about her or her work at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigailbassett (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify As per WP:Journalist "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series"

Bassett won an Emmy award for her work, and as noted in the article, the page was under construction and I planned on finding the sources today, and if not would have draftified it myself.

While you are correct, it's borderline absurd to believe that all the pages which listed her bio are lying about her award winning status. Also, the reason I did not create a draft initially, is because I recently had a draft stolen and published to mainspace, and was told by admins "It's whoever publishes to mainspace first." Comintell (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody assumed that any source was lying, but the problem was, is and remains that notability can never be established by sources that an article subject was directly affiliated with, and can only be established by third parties covering her and her work independently of her. Even an award still has to have been written about as news, somewhere other than her own staff profiles on the websites of her own employers, before it turns into a valid notability claim, because even awards are still only notable if they get reported as news by a source that doesn't represent the awarded entity simply tooting its own horn.
Also, nobody "owns" Wikipedia content, so I don't understand your "I had a draft stolen" story at all — what did anybody owe you there, and what is it preventing you from now? Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I may have jumped the gun here, and this isn't ready for mainspace. Asking closing admin to close as a draftify Comintell (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Comintell, if you like to work "privately" on drafts, rather than using draftspace, you might want to make userspace drafts instead. Other editors typically won't touch those, at least not without talking to you first. They aren't easy for other editors to find, so if you're working on a topic that's in the news, it's best to work in draftspace so others don't duplicate your work. -- asilvering (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm Abigail Bassett (the actual journalist that this page is about) and I have no idea how it was created, and I see that it was only built a few days ago. I received a random (questionable) email message about it and have been working on updating and editing it to meet Wikipedia needs and to be accurate to my career. I won the Peabody as part of the team that produced coverage of Hurricane Katrina at CNN, and for my work on Lou Dobb's Tonight's Education and Immigration series. Here is the Peabody link I was part of the CNN Presents production, and worked for Anderson Cooper during that time. Here is a link to the Lou Dobbs Emmy the staff won. Also, here is the Wikipedia link to his profile which also confirms this. I have also appeared on camera for CNN (a couple of sample links are here and here) I'm happy to provide more if needed. My work is also referenced in this Wikipedia article about Fisker. Abigailbassett (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. While I am certain you meet the criteria, the current sourcing style isn't sufficient or correct. Furthermore, it is highly discouraged for subjects of an article to edit their own page. Thank you for disclosing who you are though and you do great work! Comintell (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and the compliment. I tried to email the person who reached out about this page, but the email has now bounced (after it attempted delivery for a week). I believe it was a scam. Since I am not versed at all in what the correct sourcing might be (and admittedly absolutely terrible at javascript, etc.), and since I can't edit it myself, is there a way you or someone might be able to help me fix it? I'm happy to send links to my work. I also have a headshot if that's helpful. Abigailbassett (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abigailbassett: Do you have other sources verifying the awards won? Your name isn't listed on the articles provided for the Peabody or Lou Dobbs Emmy. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article is a mess. Are there any sources about Ms. Bassett that aren't her (contributed) bios on sites where she is an author? Walsh90210 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see the discussion above, as I think it might clarify some things. I'm the actual journalist this is about. I include links to the awards, as well as my CNN on camera work, and my bylines. Since I am not permitted to work on the sourcing issues, I'd love it if someone else could sort it out. I'm happy to provide any additional sources needed. The page was created by someone I believe was trying to scam me, and it had incorrect information all over it. Abigailbassett (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Comintell is now blocked as a sock and according to @Abigailbassett: per our discussion on her talk page, she received a WP:SCAM email about the article possibly being deleted so created an account to participate in the AfD. I have provided her guidance on recreating a new article via AfC in the event this version is deleted. S0091 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. The referencing in this article is a mess. I believe that Bassett could potentially qualify for an article, but the references in this article do not establish notability currently. BullDawg2021 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: At present, none of the sources provided establish notability, including those provided by Bassett herself. I've done some Googling and haven't been able to find any better sources that name her specifically. If sources are found relating to the awards (or other potential refs), please ping me. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk)

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. No article has ever existed at this title on the English Wikipedia. The nominator appears to be seeking deletion of the Portuguese Wikipedia's article on the subject, and in fact has nominated it at Páginas para eliminar (which is their version of AfD) with a similar rationale, but the English Wikipedia and its processes have no power over other projects and their contents. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle_Noce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Conteúdo publicitário, parecendo ser escrito pela mesma ou sua equipe. As fontes são o próprio site de Danielle, e a foto, uma selfie.Marisaconsuelo (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jim Mora (broadcaster) as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 19:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Massey Ferguson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and New Zealand. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jim Mora (broadcaster): mentioned there. I personally would rather keep this and have added a few things (see page) but it might not be enough in terms of independent coverage. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jim Mora (broadcaster) (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.

  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aref Jalayeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICBIO. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Iran. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the article does not show any information warranting nobility, nor do the sources. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But in parts of the article, the identity of this person is stated correctly. I know this person. He is active as mentioned in the article. Aref Jalayeri (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as written. Entirely dependent on below-par sources. BD2412 T 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can wait a little until better sources are attached to this article. Aref Jalayeri (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Little to no independent coverage. Possible WP:PROMO. Aintabli (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did not notice the above comments by "Aref Jalayeri". "Possible" would be an understatement. Aintabli (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmymade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable article that doesnt meet WP:ENT. Sometimes celebrities may appear in trivial mentions, which doesnt mean they meet WP:SIRS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. The TechCrunch and Hollywood Reporter sources are the most passing of passing mentions. The Daily Dot piece is substantial, but smacks of churnalism. BD2412 T 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Internet, Japan, California, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. Mitchell, Justin (2022-02-09). "A famous YouTube chef tried a beloved Mississippi recipe. The video went viral in hours". Sun Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

     The article notes: "A popular YouTube and Facebook chef cooked up a beloved Mississippi recipe for her followers, and the video garnered millions of views in just hours after it was published Tuesday. Emmymade, a content creator based in Rhode Island who is known for cooking viral recipes and trying military ration meals from around the world — including the MRE meals from the U.S. — ... The viral cooking star, who also travels to Japan frequently and tries cuisine there for her followers, said the roast was fork-tender and delicious."

  2. Landeck, Katie (2023-03-28). "Want to cook something creative? Here are 3 RI influencer chefs with big followings". The Providence Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-06-02. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

     The article notes: "Emmeline Mayline "Emmy" Cho ... Fun, upbeat and lovely, Emmeline Cho, better known as Emmy, started her YouTube channel in 2010, while she was living overseas in Japan. It started when she posted a video of her using a Japanese candy-making kit and grew from there to her tasting and cooking recipes from all over the world. Now living in Rhode Island, she posts new videos to YouTube twice a week and posts regular updates on Facebook, including regular appearances from her backyard chickens."

  3. Lanning, Carly (2015-06-17). "Meet YouTube's greatest foodie, #WCW EmmyMade in Japan". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

     The article notes: "Emmy originally started her channel with the dual intention of combating the loneliness of moving away from home and documenting her adventures as a foreigner living in Japan. She began filming herself thoughts about Japanese snacks, and over time, she has built her channel into an empire of taste-testing and international recipes."

  4. "Youtube sensation eats her way through Israel". The Jerusalem Post. 2013-09-24. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

     The article notes: "After sampling foods from various countries around the world, Youtube sensation Emmy Made in Japan has released a video of herself sampling a selection of Israeli treats. ... Emmy Made in Japan has become a Youtube sensation by filming herself sampling food from all over the world sent to her in packages by subscribers."

  5. Blom, Ashley (2017-04-27). "YouTube's 7 Best Food Channels". Paste. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

     The article notes: "Emmy’s channel is an all-encompassing food channel. She taste tests, she travels, she cooks, she demonstrates kitchen products. Some examples of categories within her amazing channel are “Fruity Fruits,” “Emmy Eats,” “You Ate WHAT?” and other mini-series featuring prison food and outrageous hot dogs. What makes Emmy unique is her clear, gentle voice and honest reviews. When she tastes something terrible, there’s no overdramatic declarations of “gross!” only a furrowed brow and an “Oh, I don’t think I like that.” One viewing, and you’ll be hooked."

  6. Less significant coverage:
     1. Scrumptious, Julie (2022-01-16). "Fudge the numbers - There are just a few ingredients in this fast and foolproof recipe". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

        The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "I also love Emmymade, the American recipe taster and tester who will give anything a go. She has a lovely easygoing manner and is very honest and realistic about whatever she is making or testing."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Emmymade to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with keeping the article this time. Courtesy ping to BD2412. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources have been identified, but the article remains unchanged. It is therefore still unsuitable for mainspace in its current state. BD2412 T 15:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the article passes the GNG with the sources identified by Cunard. The article should be expanded to incorporate those sources but that's not the discussion at AfD, only whether it passes the notability threshold. DCsansei (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've expanded the article using Cunard's sources and a few others I found. I think she's over the hump on notability. Valereee (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maksud Agadjani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable promotional article. It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Azerbaijan. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and per absence of reliable sources. BD2412 T 14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oh dear. Hard delete. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wildly promotional and does not pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable and promotional content.Sideriver84 (talk)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajagun Olusegun Peter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:GNG. No evidence of established notability. Sources are WP:ROTM and WP:ROUTINE coverages, some being dependent on the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesnt meet WP:NACADEMIC. Sources appears to be his appointment to a non notable organization in Abuja, Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Editors are free to create any redirects they deem appropriate. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Rennie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG. A search through the Gale/newspapers.com/proquest and BNA archives found no SIGCOV of Rennie. Dougal18 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Easily fails GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2010–11 Dundee F.C. season#Squad as this was apparently his best season (he appeared on the field more than once). Doesn’t pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slávka Frniaková (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have fixed this nomination, where {{subst:afd2}} was being stopped by an unclosed {{la}}. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Basketball is a popular and very well-covered sport. I would be shocked if all of these were lacking coverage. For that reason, nominating Olympic basketball players en masse is not a good idea. Suggest procedural keep with the possibility of individual renominations. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these are BLP1E as well. All of them had significant accomplishments in order to get to the Olympics. E.g. Martina Godalyova (randomly selected) was a 12-time national champion in multiple countries and led MBK Ružomberok to consecutive EuroLeague Women championships. I suspect many, maybe even a majority, would be notable, the issue is finding digitized 1990s Slovakian newspapers... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another one, Anna Kotočová, competed at two further Olympics and was inducted into the French Basketball Hall of Fame! BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As a start, keep the following: Kotočová (1988, 1992 and 2000 Olympian); Luptáková and Hiráková (1992 and 2000 Olympian); Lichnerová (played in the WNBA); Kováčová (won the Euroleague in 2005-06). This is on the presumption of coverage, yes, but I'll let that fly as the nomination is too large to handle them all anyway. Plus, Beaniefan started digging up some things. I have no opinion on the rest of the players yet, though I have a general opinion: Bundled nominations almost always fail nowadays and should be removed as a feature in AFD, actually. They are nothing but a waste of time. Geschichte (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree with this generalization, but as things go the bigger the bulk, the less likely it will pass muster. Let'srun (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to keep Kotočová, Luptáková, Hiráková, and Lichner then. Not sure about the other players. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all: After a spot review, several of these players appear to at the very least not fall into WP:BLP1E and may potentially be notable under WP:BIO. No prejudice against speedy renominating individual players. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Clariniie, it doesn't appear like the articles in this bundled nomination have been tagged for this AFD or that this AFD discussion has been formatted correctly which makes it invalid. Have you informed all of the article creators of this discussion? Bundled nominations are tricky so please follow all of the instructions at WP:AFD for a bundled nomination, especially regarding formatting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Liz: I usually informed article creators about the nomination. However, since this might be my first time making bundled nominations, I didn't notice the other pages listed weren't nominated. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All – Comment from the nominator: At the time of my WP:BEFORE check, I did not notice that several women from this nomination have received independent coverage. Generally, there is a consensus that the players listed here should end up as redirect. I was told that pretty much of my AfD nominations look seriously ill thought out, so I am going to withdraw this AfD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1958 East Pakistan-India border clash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Still fails WP:N. It is yet another skirmish with no lasting impact. This new creation is itself 80% copy of the earlier article which was deleted after the last AfD. There is no change in the sourcing. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should be done to the article to prevent deletion? And, there was another article similar to this, that was deleted? Clarify. User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (User talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet) (Talk of Georgethedragonslayer) 6:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet: By "earlier article" I believe Georgethedragonslayer is referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 East Pakistan–India border skirmish, which was deleted in March 2023. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Worldbruce: Alright, I read the discussion, I get it, I will try to do something.
• Delete Non-notable skirmish. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject lacks sufficient notability and detailed coverage in reliable sources outside of local military records and local commemorations.Nxcrypto Message 09:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No change since the last AfD. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is clear consensus against deletion. Any editor is welcome to move to a better title. Owen× ☎ 08:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The term "Joyce brothers" does not appear in any of the four brothers mentioned here. Google results for the term, even with words like "psychologist" and "doctor" removed, still return the more famous Joyce Brothers, but no James or anyone else. Should be a redirect targeted to her and labeled {{r from miscapitalization}}, as I think that result would be far less surprising for readers (I certainly wasn't expecting it). I would oppose a hatnote as I think this is all a bit too silly to exist in any form, but if it's insisted upon then I'm willing to renege. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of surprise, I was not expecting this to have been up at RfD just this month. Quite the hot button issue I suppose. Looking at that discussion, I don't think it should've been closed as early as it was, so I will argue against a procedural close of this as I think the issue is unresolved. Pinging Shhhnotsoloud, jnestorius, 162 etc., and Presidentman who participated, and * Pppery * who closed, as it's only fair if I'm going to claim this as a continuing discussion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous discussion. I am neutral on renaming to Joyce brothers (disambiguation) as long as there is a {{redirect}} hatnote from Joyce Brothers. jnestorius^(talk) 10:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm 100% in favour of deleting this, but opening an AfD immediately following a consensus at the RfD discussion isn't the right way to do it. WP:MRV would be your next step. 162 etc. (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The correct venue for challenging a closure at WP:RFD would be WP:DRV not WP:MRV. But I have no objection to my RfD closure being undone and the RfD relisted - looking back at it with a clearer head I agree my restore closure really doesn't properly reflect the consensus so you don't need to use any formal review processes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Had I seen the RfD first, I would've done just that. My mistake for not doing so. Bit too late for it now, but I'm glad you're aware and hopefully it helps your process in the future. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the consensus at RfD (now I've seen jnestorius's rationale). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fundamental question here is: will this aid readers in finding something for which they might be searching. Yes, yes it will. BD2412 T 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See, but I very much disagree with this. Sure, readers might be searching for the famous writer James Joyce and his far less famous brother, or the other two brothers, or they could (and I think far more likely are; see the page views where Dr. Brothers consistently gets hundreds of times the viewership as the brothers other than James) looking for the famous psychologist with this exact name. If we're desparate to keep this, then jnestorius' suggestion to add "(disambiguation)" might be useful, but regardless I don't see how this isn't a SURPRISE issue. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Joyce brothers (disambiguation). The answer to BD2412's fundamental question is an emphatic no: most people search in lowercase, and someone typing "joyce brothers" is almost certainly looking for the primary-topic psychologist. I guess there's no policy basis to delete the disambiguation page (even though I'm not convinced it's useful), but keeping it at the current title would make things harder for readers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to moving the page; I just don't think it should be deleted. Of course, we have a distinct process for requesting page moves. BD2412 T 01:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to ASC Oțelul Galați. ✗plicit 11:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Oțelul II Galați (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to ASC Oțelul Galați. A short-lived reserve team that never achieved notability on its own. Geschichte (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. By the way you don’t need an AfD discussion for a redirect. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would like to port some of the information from this article to the future 'parent' article. Do we have an example of how a 2nd team is described as part of the main article of a team? LaUr3nTiU (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just include a sub-heading with the information and make sure to source it. SportingFlyer T·C 17:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 15:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haarlem Kennemerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to HFC Haarlem. The team, which plays on a very low level, has not achieved notability on its own. Instead, the page exclusively repeats information already contained in the HFC Haarlem article. Geschichte (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. On notability this would be a very easy keep. The repetition claim, however, has some merit. I'll research and consider it some more. gidonb (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If it stays alive it will general coverage over time, and you shouldn't redirect to a disbanded club article with a phoenix club article. There is basic coverage around, enough so to warrant the article. Govvy (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient sources which appear to show notability, and other clubs in same division all seem to have articles, indicating a general notability for clubs of that ilk. GiantSnowman 15:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @GiantSnowman By "other clubs", are you referring to the 12 clubs in the bottom template? Vierde Klasse consists of 55 divisions with 12 or 14 teams in each, so the claim that "other clubs in same division all seem to have articles" seems far from correct. Geschichte (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. Current content is misleading. Article is biased toward the famous "parent", while the club continues on the license and registration of the other parent. I will fix that. Name should be Haarlem-Kennemerland FC. While I support dropping the FC where it is not needed, here it is needed. "Haarlem Kennemerland" is "city region" and that is ambiguous. The dash was unjustifiably dropped. Nomination is focused on the fact that the club currently plays in the Vierde Klasse, however it has played in the Tweede Klasse and under the previous name in the Eerste. gidonb (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Indoor Nationals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Also nominating Nike Outdoor Nationals (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.

Reviewed during NPP. All 3 sources are from the event's official website, and I found no sources online that establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sport of athletics, New York, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep. I agree that there are no good sources, and that its near impossible to find a reliable source talking about the Nike Indoor Nationals. Turns out there are some good sources talking about it. A lot of @Habst's sources are about the Nike Outdoor nationals, but they still provided a good number of articles about the Indoor Nationals. The sources aren't really fully about the event specifically, but I believe they're still fine articles to use. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the event meets WP:GNG as an important prep athletics championship. Responding to the concerns by @CanonNi and @Coulomb1, there's plenty of independent coverage from The Washington Post, New York Times, The Post-Standard, MileSplit, The Journal News, Bozeman Daily Chronicle The Cullman Times, and many more. --Habst (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of my links were for the indoor nationals – for the outdoor nationals, there's even more coverage from LetsRun.com, Track & Field News, The Santa-Cruz Sentinel, Eugene Register-Guard, MileSplit, etc. --Habst (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how this slipped past me. I have no problem with keeping this article then. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. There is rough consensus that with some work, the page could be improved to meet our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 19:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with gyro features (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems like stealth WP:SPAM from a WP:SPA and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE anyway, as there are too many games with gyro features to reliably list without it being undue effort for editors, including games that use gyro controls for completely trivial things, like emoting in Bloodborne. It is also written like an essay. This is the kind of over-listification we don't need. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how it can seem like stealth WP:SPAM, since gyro is such a poorly documented feature, most sources will inevitably be from Jibb Smart, the (only) person who did the most amount of research about this topic. He is a trusted source who currently works at Epic Games, and he created the gold standard for modern gyro.

I don't understand how it can be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Explanations, and context were given for every section of the list, it's clear what each thing means, and having Wikipedia as a place for this list would ensure that people will find important information that wasn't extensively documented by the publisher of that game, as well as explaining how gyro works on most games, increasing the knowledge of the reader about this topic.

I agree that too many games use gyro controls for trivial things, I was thinking of a way to exclude such cases, while only including the cases where it was used for Aiming, Steering, Controlling a cursor, and minigames. So games like The Last of Us, where you need to shake the controller to turn the flashlight on, or emoting on Bloodborne would not be included. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, but nom should be incredibly careful about throwing around insulting terms like spam to what is, in reality, probably just an enthusiast - WP:AGF! That aside though, I don't think segmenting video games by feature is a good WP:LISTCRIT because it essentially ends up being a list of most video games on any games consoles that have a gyroscope - that's all VR games, pretty much all Wii games, and most Switch games. The sourcing here is also generally inappropriate - presentation slides from a "how-to" talk are primary sources, and lean towards articles violating WP:NOTHOWTO. This is clearly not an article appropriate for mainspace.

I don't think everything in this article should be blown up though, hence my vote. With a better LISTCRIT (perhaps just consoles?) and the removal of the OR, I think this could stand. BrigadierG (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly omitted VR games in the introduction because their use of gyro features isn't the same as traditional use on normal consoles, and the console's list states that the Wii remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, so only a handful of games on the Wii support gyro because gyro was only introduced later with the Wii Motion Plus accessory. The argument that there would be just too many games to list, and that would be just a "list of most games of certain platforms" shows how little information people have about this feature and what it does, and the importance of this article in the first place.

If the wording of this article leaves space for this kind of confusion, perhaps it would be better to simply change the name and specify in the introduction what is considered a game "with" or "without" gyro features.

If there's a problem with the sources, I can use different ones, but most of them come from the same person (Jibb Smart), with a similar format, because it is the only place and format where this information was compiled and tested.

I also don't understand how it violates the WP:NOTHOWTO because the article doesn't teach anything, it just shares information, the source of that information happens to be from a "how to" presentation. Also, I don't understand how it doesn't make a good WP:LISTCRIT, when a similar list for the Wii Motion Plus accessory exists: List of games that support Wii MotionPlus. This list essentially is "every Wii/WiiU Game that supports gyro features" and it's been up since 2011. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing the subject of this list to "All games with gyro aiming", which would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section of this list can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library and clear up any confusion with the title of this page. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I want to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia - it is excellent to have more motivated editors working on fields that they have a lot of experience documenting. That said, there are quite a few issues with this article that go beyond the selection criteria and I think will require a major overhaul to rectify. This article as it stands right now is WP:SYNTH - and the research you've done on the topic (although thorough) is ultimately original. This article as-is can't stand in mainspace, and I would recommend submitting through WP:AFC rather than moving directly to mainspace.

I think you should take a real close read of WP:OR and WP:RS. BrigadierG (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]