Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 13

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!} 23:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangir Alam Kabir (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 person. Sources are either unreliable or merely passing mentions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Bangladesh. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think don't need to deletion because he mainly journalist so it's better to stay and he is vice president of satkhira press club Antu Official (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  bro what's the problem with this article. Even in bangla Wikipedias many article is hasn't valid references or local news reference. Unfortunately some article delete by national newspapers so I provided local daily newspapers reference so where is the problem? So I reference it Daily kalantor news and they approved as well they make infobox I just edit and upgrade everything properly, that's it. Antu Official (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  bro what's the problem with this article. Even in bangla Wikipedias many article is hasn't valid references or local news reference. Unfortunately some article delete by national newspapers so I provided local daily newspapers reference so where is the problem? So I reference it Daily kalantor news and they approved as well they make infobox I just edit and upgrade everything properly, that's it. Antu Official (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  if you search "দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবীর " you guys get news references and I agree one or two are national newspapers. But if you are watch deeply so you guys get name 'দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবির or দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবীর' into all article . And the main fact is you guys always delete this article and removing with out using common sense. Antu Official (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think don't need to deletion because he mainly journalist so it's better to stay and he is vice president of satkhira press club Antu Official (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  bro what's the problem with this article. Even in bangla Wikipedias many article is hasn't valid references or local news reference. Unfortunately some article delete by national newspapers so I provided local daily newspapers reference so where is the problem? So I reference it Daily kalantor news and they approved as well they make infobox I just edit and upgrade everything properly, that's it.

  if you search "দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবীর " you guys get news references and I agree one or two are national newspapers. But if you are watch deeply so you guys get name 'দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবির or দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবীর' into all article . And the main fact is you guys always delete this article and removing with out using common sense Antu Official (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it This have no any significance coverage. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 09:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources are unreliable and these can’t really establish notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. GrabUp - Talk 02:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Menudo (group). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los últimos héroes (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM. Having searched the internet, Scholar, and Google Books, the "best" I could find was a fansite collecting clips by the Menudo telenovela of the same name. Redirect to Menudo (group). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Puerto Rico. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nomination. These recently recreated Menudo articles are just not notable. Ss112 02:20, 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!} 21:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Vaillancourt (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about an artist, and not found any references from reliable, independent sources to add. I do not see that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST. NB an earlier version of the article says the artist has worked on cover art for sci-fi books, so have sorted this in to that category. Tacyarg (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Science fiction and fantasy, Visual arts, and Canada. Tacyarg (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This illustrator does not meet WP criteria for inclusion per GNG ANYBIO, BASIC nor NARTIST. A "before" search revealed sources for an economist who shares the same name (who actually may be notable per WP guidelines), however this François Vaillancourt is non-notable. Netherzone (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BEFORE does not bring up RS to show notability. I am only finding bibliography in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. No RS for biographical info. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely unreferenced, does not cite any sources. Nothing shows this meets WP:ARTIST guidelines like "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Elspea756 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Menudo (group). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Fantasmas (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM, I was unable to find anything other than lyrics and social media reviews online, nothing on Google Books or Scholar. The es.wiki article cites two articles in a Brazilian newspaper, but the articles in question just discuss Menudo's career as a whole and do not dedicate detail to this album. Redirect back to Menudo (band) seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Puerto Rico. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nomination. Not notable but still a valid redirect. Ss112 02:17, 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 redirect‎ to Menudo (group). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Os Ultimos Herois (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM. I was unable to identify any independent coverage, having performed several searches in Portuguese on thee web, Google Books, and Google Scholar. Redirecting to Menudo (band) seems most useful to readers in the absence of sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Brazil, and Puerto Rico. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Not notable. Ss112 02:18, 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 redirect‎ to Batman#Technology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batcopter (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)

Far cry from cult imaginery of Batmobile or even Batplane, this is poorly referenced fancruft. Batman occasionally used a helicopter - this could be mentioned in Batman#Technology or in the Batplane article. No need for a stand-alone list of trivia in which comics and other media this happened (WP:GNG fail, with WP:V being an issue as well as much content here is unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Batman#Technology per nom. There's not much in the way of coverage for the Batcopter, and does not meet the notability guideline. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Batman#Technology. This is mostly uncited trivia. It's sad to see that Neelix's obsessive trolling is still disrupting Wikipedia nearly a decade after the fact of his ousting. Softlavender (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Batman#Technology would indeed be the best choice here. TH1980 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Batman#Technology. Does not meet the notability guideline. Jontesta (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Batman#Technology per nom.

TheBritinator (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Batman#Technology per the above discussion Master rollo (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Batman#Technology - Much like the Batboat, this article is not really on a single topic, but just a variety of unrelated vehicles that various incarnations of Batman have used. As far as I can tell from this article, only one of these was ever even referred to as a "Batcopter". As stated in the nom, the fact that Batman has occasionally used a helicopter can simply be mentioned in the Technology section of the main Batman article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and per the suggestion of the other who contributed to this discussion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:01, 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. and Salt Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youngboi OG (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)

Promotional article for artist who fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has been deleted twice before, newest incarnation of article featured several sources that looked reliable on the surface, but were copied verbatim from this Blogspot blog, where they were published first, and which solely consists of five puffery-filled articles about this artist. (N.B.: This blog was deleted shortly after this AfD was opened.) The other two sources (no authors given) are also written in this non-journalistic press release style, one of which is on the same platform (menafn.com) that copied the Blogspot article, calling its integrity into question. Rift (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: and salt. News Ghana is but a few paragraphs, signed by the staff... No coverage whatsoever, nothing meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, all sources fail WP:42 and there's nothing else about him. Might just be too soon, but that still means he's not currently notable. Also, despite this edit summary, it doesn't seem to have actually gone through the AFC process. StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King (rapper) (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)

This was here once before and the result was to redirect as the subject was deemed to not be sufficiently notable on their own, but it seems some folks keep trying to turn it into an article, so here we are again. "First Indian pop star to walk the red carpet at Cannes" seems like a desperate attempt to establish notability over a random intersection of events, seeing as Cannes is a film festival, not a music festival. I think this should either be restored to a redirect or preferably, just deleted. If either of those is done it should also be salted until such time as someone is able to produce a draft article that actually has significant coverage from reliable sources. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Nothing notable here. I don't even know if WP:BLP1E would apply here for that last sentence, if it is indeed a desperate attempt at notability. Aside from the sources already in the article and links to his music, I can't find much else. I also get more hits about other people, especially another rapper by the name of Chris King. Procyon117 (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. The title should be salted because it is being recreated without showing notability. GrabUp - Talk 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Great Train Robbery (1963). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mills (Great Train Robbery) (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:VICTIM. This seems like a totally un-necessary biography and a WP:CONTENTFORK of the Great Train Robbery. The subject was not individually notable, and his death was a part of the larger train robbery so having a separate article like Death of Jack Mills doesn't seem appropriate. A merge or redirect to Great Train Robbery would be an acceptable WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a redirect to Great Train Robbery (1963). Procyon117 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 02:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gdeszyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD |)

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

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a Battle of Gdeszyn . Fajowy (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply[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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article is based on one sentence from Volodymyr Viatrovich's book which talks about this battle and nothing more and he is considered even for pseudo-historic AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the source is WP:PRIMARY and also it didn't say anything about a battle, but about such minor clash: On 14.4.44, in the village of Dedeshin, two Ukrainian self-defence riflemen were killed in an ambush by 7 Polish robbers.Marcelus (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  true, but the fight itself is taken from only one book and that is from a pseudo-historical one Historyk.ok (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced significantly to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 11 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!} 19:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. A single source, a primary too, is insufficient to establish the notability of the event.- Altenmann >talk 22:03, 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 redirect‎ to Chinese Figure Skating Championships#Ladies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Qingyun (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 skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. I was not able to find any English or Chinese sources about the subject person, and she has only won bronze medals in the Chinese Championships, failing both GNG and NSKATE. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:57, 9 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, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chinese Figure Skating Championships#Ladies. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Chinese Figure Skating Championships#Ladies: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muuse Ismaciil Qalinle (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)

Contested PROD. The sources do not demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. (The first source is some kind of WP:USERGENERATED list of MP3 files, the second source has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the subject, and the third fails verification entirely, referencing an entirely different individual with the patronym "Qalinle.") Edited to add: an editor has added a reference to Somali Culture and Folklore, pages 63-64. I do not believe this is a valid reference; the book itself is 64 pages and according to Google Books pages 63 and 64 appear to be index pages; Qalinle does not appear as a search term. Additional qualifying sources were not found in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no sources that even mention this person. A Google search turns up only Wikipedia mirrors, social media, and lists of songs. CodeTalker (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sign of any RS no matter what keyword combinations are used. StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. At this point there is a consensus the article should either exist or should be merged. Since consensus for which of those options is better can be finalized outside of AfD, I am closing this as keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia (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:NLIST with no evidence that reliable, secondary, independent sources discuss Australian female Anglican bishops as a group versus discussing them individually. (The sources listed under "Further Reading" describe the experiences or cover women clergy more generally or all women Anglican clergy in Australia, not just bishops. The one exception, a book by Muriel Porter is not an independent source, as Porter is an elected member of the Anglican Church's governing synod and described in her Wikipedia article as an "advocate" who is "active in campaigning" for women's ordination in the church.) Meanwhile, the page fails WP:NOPAGE as a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of female Anglican bishops. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with most of the points you make as reasons for deletion. For example I don't think there needs to be one source dedicated to just female Anglican bishops in Australia, but a source can cover bishops in the Anglican communion generally as well as other clergy. The only point I can see as valid is that the list could be seen as a content fork of List of female Anglican bishops. I admit I only saw that other list after I created this one. In the case of it needing to be merged I think it would have been better to message me or put something on the Talk page about merging rather than marking it for deletion. I have marked this comment as Keep for now only to see if other editors want to comment. However if there is enough support to merge List of women bishops with List of female Anglican bishops... I am happy to do that and I will then continue to update the List of female bishops with the Australian ones because that is one of my areas of focus on wikipedia.LPascal (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: In case I am asked to find more sources on women bishops, I'm sure I could find one here on this list but I don't have time to do that just now https://search.worldcat.org/lists/1b9e2384-b013-48e0-b45b-911ee8d3ca3f And I think it would be impractical to expect to find a source who was a journalist or historian writing about the Anglican church who was not in some way connected to the church. If anyone writes about ordained women in the Anglican church it is usually because they are for or against and rarely are they "independent". LPascal (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: I have just found a load of newspaper articles dating back to at least early 2000s discussing women bishops as a group in the Anglican Church of Australia, so I could add those into the sources or Further reading if anyone thinks they will be better as reliable, secondary, independent sources that support a freestanding list of women bishops in Australia. Here's just a few but I will wait for consensus before I add them to a list.https://www.news.com.au/national/anglicans-elect-first-woman-bishop/news-story/670c8cfb59e29dc6a251374541369c8b https://tma.melbourneanglican.org.au/2024/04/one-in-six-diocesan-assistant-bishops-a-woman-across-australia/ https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria-rebels-on-women-bishops-20031012-gdwiyd.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/women-bishops-a-step-closer-20030704-gdvzja.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-09-30/division-remains-after-way-cleared-for-female/685088 LPascal (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge to List of female Anglican bishops as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per WP:HEY, if any only if the sources found are added. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Thanks Bearian for the Keep. I am happy to both keep the article/list or merge it with List of female Anglican bishops. If consensus is reached on Keep I will certainly add in more refs to show women bishops in Australia are much discussed as a group. If the agreement is to merge, I will add them into the List of female Anglican bishops. If I merge the lists, whoever is responsible, please do not delete the old one until I have added names and refs to the LOFAB. As some of the bishops will not yet be bluelinked because they won't have an article, I will need to keep the refs in the list to show they are bishops.

  On that note Dclemens1971 whatever happens to the two lists, I would appreciate your help in creating articles for the new women bishops as your user page states you focus on bishops on Wikipedia. I've been waiting for another editor to create articles for those three women bishops, but no one has started one yet, unless it's in someone's sandbox. LPascal (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cansolabao, Samar (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)

Does not have any notability and has no sources. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized barangays. Also, coverage found in books. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cocobb8 barangays are not cities/towns of the Philippines. They are just administrative divisions. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). Only those that jave backing reliable, independent, secondary sources that are not mere statistic listings or listings of schools/establishments/tourist sites, like Forbes Park, Makati, are qualified to have standalone articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JWilz12345, I know that it is an administrative division, which is why I am saying that it meets WP:GEOLAND per [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I am using the guideline as a justification for my !vote, and the discussion you linked to was not officially closed, nor was it an official RfC in any way, so at this point WP:GEOLAND is the guideline to follow for this article. Yes, it lacks coverage, but it is presumed notable per GEOLAND. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cocobb8 so, in your opinion, is Barangay 51, Caloocan (list of Caloocan's barangays) notable too? It is a legal administrative division, with a chief local executive (a "barangay captain or chairman") and a set of elected councilors ("barangay kagawad"). The country has more than 40,000 barangays or administrative wards of the country's 1,634 incorporated places. Hard to maintain all 40K+ articles as per some concerns raised by Filipino Wikipedians in debates concerning articles of barangays of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JWilz12345 I did not realize it was 40,000 barangays. Thanks for pointing it out. But, I would still keep this article per the coverage I found in books. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarification: Barangays are not just "administrative" divisions like regions, but are full fledged political units like towns, cities and provinces. WP:GEOLAND has a funky definition of a "settlement". Barangay 666 in Manila is not a WP:GEOLAND settlement, as it along with 800 barangays of Manila, and perhaps 90% of the barangays in Mega Manila, are one contiguous urban sprawl. Standalone barangays in the hinterlands are WP:GEOLAND settlements if the built up area is not contiguous with the primary settlement in the town center. The question is if WP:GEOLAND is good enough if we can't write an article because there's no WP:SIGCOV from an WP:RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Howard the Duck maybe because the Philippine LGU system when it comes to municipal level is not intended as it was originally used to be. The article for the Philippine towns speaks of a former type of "town" called "municipal districts" that were mostly found in far-flung or remote areas. They were unincorporated (similar to U.S. census designated places) and were managed by tribal chieftains. It was after World War II that these unincorporated regions/districts within the provinces began to be converted to regular towns or municipalities, even those that do not comprise a single settlement but multiple barangay settlements that may not be contiguous to each other. The last of the conversions to regular municipalities were in the 1980s.

  I would like to see a country whose smallest administrative divisions/units are covered by enwiki. I think that would be India (e.g. Delhi Cantonment and Haqiqat Nagar ➡️ List of neighbourhoods of Delhi). @Cocobb8:, can you give specific examples of countries whose 90-100% of smallest administrative divisions (divisions of cities/towns) are covered by enwiki? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JWilz12345, it's not about whether that is the case for other small administrative divisions. That is a larger-scale discussion, and that is not the purpose of this AfD. As I said before, I would still keep this as per the sources I found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Howard the Duck Just a question where does GEOLAND talk about urban sprawl and subdvisions/subadminsitrative units of a greater one? Ping me in the reply too please. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was a previous barangay AFD like this one, and Barangay 666 in Manila is not a "settlement" for GEOLAND purposes but villages that are built up separately are. I don't have a computer with me and I won't be bothered to look it up on mobile. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Traumnovelle: In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, User:Eostrix discusses this. Granted it was apparently his personal interpretation.

  As for this barangay, this is quite some distance away from the main Hinabangan town center, about 36 kilometers away. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...that AfD completely mis-applies WP:GEOLAND... SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cansolabao is also a village. The article should be reworked and sources added, but a village with 1,200 people would be notable in a country where the administrative boundaries aren't in wiki-dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer the current de facto consensus among Filipino Wikipedians is that the administrative wards or barangays should be treated per case-to-case basis. Those like Forbes Park, Makati can stand alone, but majority (90% perhaps) do not. Unless a higher consensus through WP:GEOLAND forums overrides the de facto consensus of the Filipino Wikipedians. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GEOLAND is policy which would over-ride local consensus, which would not preclude this topic anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GEOLAND is a subject-specific notability guideline, and overrides local consensus. WP:GNG is the general notability guideline overrides any WP:SNG. WP:GNG overrides WP:GEOLAND. The argument here is does this place have WP:SIGCOV anywhere? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GNG does not actually override WP:GEOLAND - WP:GEOLAND is one of the rare exceptions and simply requires verification that this is a populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays. HueMan1 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:49, 6 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:44, 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 redirect‎ to 2011–12 figure skating season#Ice dance 4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Kholoniuk (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 skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. NSKATE is wrong and should never have been adopted. So many articles about champion skaters are being deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2011-2012 figure skating season#Ice dance 4 or to 2011–12 ISU Junior Grand Prix#Ice dance, possibly to another table in those articles. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 13:42, 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 redirect‎ to ISU Junior Grand Prix in Croatia#Women's singles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Kropotina (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 skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ISU_Junior_Grand_Prix_in_Croatia#Women's_singles. Achievements are insufficient to meet WP:NSKATE. I have not found any secondary sources that speak directly about her, only mentioning her in passing. By the way, references 1 and 3 do not work, and 2nd gives meager performance statistics. Tau Corvi (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ISU_Junior_Grand_Prix_in_Croatia#Women's_singles: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD, with the history preserved in the event better sourcing can be found. Let'srun (talk) 14:14, 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 Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Solčanský (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 Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage about this luger to meet WP:GNG. All I found on news websites were passing mentions of his participation at the tournament. He was not even on top three luge winners. This article has been deleted from Slovak Wikipedia on 18 November 2018, possibly due to BLP concerns. The only interlanguage wiki available is Norsk Bokmål (Norwegian) Wikipedia but it listed exactly the same sources as the English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article meets the notability criteria for athletes, having competed in the Winter Olympics and achieved notable rankings in World Championships and World Cups.Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:09, 29 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!} 16:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Participating in the Olympics no longer grants inherent notability. Redirect as a WP:ATD per the nom. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 7 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics as the subject doesn’t meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Could not find any WP:SIGCOV Vorann Gencov (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above or to Luge at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Doubles#Results. Doesn’t meet WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested as an AtD. We've been presented with sporting results, and from that we're supposed to build a biography of a living human being? WP:SPORTSPERSON requires at least one source which directly details the subject. Nothing like that here. BusterD (talk) 11:28, 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!} 23:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia's Kitchen (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 orphan article. Getting 2 reviews in the Melbourne press really isn't a big claim for notability as per WP:AUD. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Cambodia, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Rodell, Besha (2022-08-30). "Cambodia's Kitchen brings a taste of Cambodia to the CBD". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend magazine and in The Age here. The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet."

  2. "Australia Travel: Best places to eat in Melbourne". The New Zealand Herald. 2022-11-20. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls."

  3. Monssen, Kara (2022-11-16). "Cambodia's Kitchen review 2022: Chinatown newcomer behind city's great-value lunch spot". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder."

  4. Sweet, Frank (2023-06-30). "Melbourne's best hot pots". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast."

  5. Curran, Libby (2022-08-18). "Cambodia's Kitchen Is the New CBD Restaurant Paying Homage to Classic Cambodian Fare". Concrete Playground. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf."

     • Here^{Internet Archive} is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
       1. Its editor is Samantha Teague.
       2. "Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
       3. "All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
       4. "Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
       5. "Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
       6. "All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
       7. "We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
       8. "Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
       Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press (1), Johns Hopkins University Press (1), Routledge (1 and 2), Taylor & Francis (1), and Text Publishing (1).
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cambodia's Kitchen to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources mentioned in the comment above are more than enough for notability, easily passes GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 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 merge‎ to Assam separatist movements. There is a strong consensus below not to retain (merge + delete + a handful of draftify). Merge both has a slightly stronger support base, but also a justification as a valid WP:ATD. This is clear option forward based on the consensus. Daniel (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom (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:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete/Repurpose Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

  You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

  Sources and GNG

  Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:

  • Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism
  • Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once
  • Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once
  • Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once
  • Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.
  • Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech
  • Source 7 - Does not mention it
  • Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement
  • Source 11 - Does not mention it
  • Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement
  • Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement
  • Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it
  • etc. etc.

  Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

  However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

  WP:V - Verifiability

  Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

  For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

  I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.

  A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.

  Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).

  Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).

  Both of the 3 papers are important sources

  Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well

  Ref:

  Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.

  Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.

  Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.

  Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.

  Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.

  Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources

  You mentioned the following:

  " If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."

  I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.

  There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

  I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

  However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.

  Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.

  The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.

  This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.

  Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.

  ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:23, 6 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Assam separatist movements. A lot of the references talk about this wider topic, and perhaps the even wider topic of political alignment in Assam. The idea is broader than just being related to United Liberation Front of Asom, so I'm not sure a merger there would work effectively. CMD (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with modifications As others pointed out too, the topic is not suitable for just under ULFA or Assam separatist movement, and I had pointed out to two books whole volumes that talk about this topic. Modifications can always be made to this article itself. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify: It's likely there's an article here, but the article in its current form seems more aspirational than factual. There are geographic and social issues here not easily resolved. I'm also okay with a merge, possibly to Assam separatist movements. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Assam separatist movements. There appears to be substantial overlap in the topics covered by these two articles. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ as there is a consensus that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia guidelines. I know the DRV suggested salting which I am not doing - it was not part of the consensus here - but do so without prejudice to some other uninvolved administrator protecting the article from recreation. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moruf Oseni (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)

Procedural nom following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 19 where consensus was that the speedy wasn't the right outcome, but did not necessarily find support for retention and the outcome was for an AfD to establish consensus. Note I have dropped the protection to ECP to allow established editors to improve the article if they feel so inclined as it didn't feel right to have a fully protected article at AfD. However if p-blocks or other solutions are needed, feel free to implement them. I have not protected the AfD out of hope that all editors will work productively. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging @BoraVoro:, who has been fighting the relentless efforts from COI/SPAs to prematurely undraftify this page. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

What is the main issue with the page? Are other editors citing any apart from the G11 on the Achievements and Awards section mentioned in the deletion review? @Star Mississippi Michael Ugbodu (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the merit @Michael Ugbodu, I just nominated it as the outcome of the DRV. Star Mississippi 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative cautious keep. It appears this article has a history of ping-ponging between draft space and mainspace, with promotional tone, COI/UPE(?) editing issues, and initially unclear claims of significance/notability. As such it deserves scrutiny. (As an aside, it sounded from DRV there might be information about this on the article's talk page, but this has not been undeleted). That said, earlier this month Michael Ugbodu (who I understand may be an involved editor?) added additional sources which point to achievements and awards that present a credible assertion of significance. In such cases, there are sometimes concerns if the sourcing (and awards) themselves are sufficiently independent, i.e. editorially independent vs regurgitating primary sources only. I'm not familiar with Nigerian sourcing, so don't have a good opinion on this. However, while the process followed with this article has been irregular and far from good practice, absent credible assertions to the contrary, it does seem there is adequate 3rd party coverage, sourcing, and notability to warrant an article. Martinp (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for flagging the lack of talk page @Martinp. Oversight on my part. It's now undeleted Star Mississippi 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that I've reviewed the talk page, and read the DRV in more detail, I'm changing to delete, send back to draft and enforce requiring using WP:AFC to recreate by any COI editors. I applaud @Michael Ugbodu for their clear statement of COI on the talk page, and for hunting up promising sources. However, paid editing COI should also be listed on the editor's user talk page, and paid-COI article drafts are indeed supposed to go through WP:AFC, not be promoted into mainspace by a COI editor. This is not just bureaucracy, it is exactly there where independence of sources, article bias, etc can be reviewed best, insulating from the fact that a paid-COI editor has much more energy to argue than uncompensated volunteers if there is any debate. We've now had (at least) multiple days at DRV and now 2.5 days here where no-one independent has truly investigated notability and independence of the secondary sources used. Given the COI, this is a must, and while it may be frustrating to a paid editor and their client to have to wait, it would equally be unfair to keep this article in mainspace absent someone independent, experienced with local (Nigerian) sourcing, to verify, jumping the queue vs other paid articles that are going through the (admittedly clogged) AFC pipeline. I'm happy to change my vote if someone independent does investigate those sources during the rest of this AFD. Martinp (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to come to a consensus on the main issues with the page. The sources for the awards section are all newspaper sources and not primary sources, so can be considered credible. However, I think the second paragraph on the achievements section can be better written or scrapped as it sounds promotional.

Let's hear what others think as well. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's trickier, Michael. We have a lot of trouble with CV-like COI articles which do use secondary (newspaper) sources, but they are not sufficiently independent of the article subject. I'm (probably) not notable in wikispeak, but would not become so just because I persuaded a newspaper (or two) to run an article where they just parroted what I told them. That's why we need someone who doesn't have a COI to look into that (I can't, since I know nothing about Nigerian newspaper writing habits!) Martinp (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List

Here's the address the subject presumably lacking GNG.

The GNG guidelines include:

“Independent Coverage” - "There is significant coverage in reliable sources": The subject has sources from Reliable sources like CNBC Africa, Punch Newspapers, Leadership Newspapers, This Day Live, Business Day, The Guardian Nigeria, and New Telegraph.

"Significant coverage" - “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material”: The article has a mix of coverage that are focused on the subject and others that support and are not "trivial mentions". All articles referenced have a good amount of coverage of the subject. The section with the least amount of coverage would be the 'Awards section' which goes to show that it wasn't paid for as if it were paid for, more coverage would be seen.

“Sources should be secondary": All sources listed in the article are secondary sources

"Independent of the subject": There is no Advertising, Press Release, Autobiography, or Subject website content on the article. Anybody who feels there is one should please specifically point it out so it can be removed. If the 'Awards' section is deemed too promotional and not having significant coverage, by all means let's take out that section. An entire article doesn't have to be discarded because a particular section has issues. That's why discussions like these were created.

Being a paid editor isn't against Wikipedia rules and shouldn't bring bias to discussions like this. The question is "does the subject pass the GNG? Is the article good enough for mainspace? Is there anything that can be done to improve it for mainspace?" That's what should be the focus, not just going ahead to have it deleted. It is clear that the subject has notability from all the references cited. The Bank of which the subject is CEO of, Wema Bank, is on Wikipedia as well. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My reasons are stated above Michael Ugbodu (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article needs to be re-written with proper sources. I will recommend the article is adopted by a competent writer, and rewritten because i can posit the individual does not lack GNG. Currently, the article looks promotional. I recommend it is opened for general editing. Pshegs (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally lack GNG and the reliable sources has no significant coverage

DXdy FX (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [This was made in response to a comment, listing a cross-section of references from the article, that's now been changed.] Seriously? 1 [CNBC Africa] has no coverage of the man. 2 [Premium Times] and 4 [Business Day] are copies of the same press release, also appearing e.g. here and here. 3 [Leadership Newspaper] is entirely a quoted press release. 5 [also Leadership Newspaper] is another unmarked press release, as also seen for example here, here, and here. 6 [Guardian Nigeria] also has no biographical coverage, merely a few quotes.
  If you think these constitute GNG-satisfying coverage, I have to ask: are you, like every other editor who has taken an interest in this page, being paid to do so, or are you merely incompetent? —Cryptic 22:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I checked very they are all press releases. The subject generally has no notability. I think I’ll change my vote to delete right now. DXdy FX (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not ready, lacks notability. --BoraVoro (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The WP:SIGCOV isn't independent and the independent coverage isn't SIGCOV. The only significant coverage of him in media is either direct reprints of WP:PRESSRELEASEs about his appointment(s) at the bank or thinly regurgitated churnalism based on said press releases with no evidence of additional reporting. The other sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that quote him incidental to his role at the bank but that do not provide significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎ to Draft:Mehran Tebyani. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Tebyani (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)

Moved from draft by conflicted editor, no evidence of passing WP:GNG primary sources and interviews don't help with notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redraftify until notability issues fixed. Procyon117 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Tebyani

is a notable figure in the field of music, particularly recognized for being the first Iranian conductor to hold a doctoral degree. His contributions to the music industry are significant and well-documented. Here are key points highlighting his notability and accomplishments:

• Academic Achievements: Mehran Tebyani holds a doctoral degree, making him the first Iranian conductor to achieve this level of academic success in the field.
• Publications: He has published a book in Iran, which contributes to his recognition as a scholar and expert in music.
• Media Coverage: Tebyani has been interviewed by numerous newspapers in Iran, demonstrating his influence and prominence in the Iranian music scene.
• Radio Sessions: During his time in Los Angeles, he hosted a radio session dedicated to the history of music for one year, further showcasing his expertise and commitment to educating the public about music.
• Concerts and Performances: He has conducted several concerts at UCLA in Los Angeles, adding to his international recognition and illustrating his active involvement in the music community.

Dr.Hana jalili (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move back to Draft -- as it is written, there aren't enough sources that establish notability beyond a doubt (the Lede has an interesting fact and cool accomplishment but probably is not enough on its own to get past GNG or a Music notability guideline). The author should continue to work on getting sources that point directly to notability (translated quotations from Iranian publications would help). On the WP:PROF side, it's a case of TOOSOON (often composers and conductors who are also academics pass the GNG or NMUSIC bar before they pass the WP:PROF criteria. -- any one of them is, however, enough to be a keep vote). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify based on the discussion and argument, I see draftifying as the best option. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:25, 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 draftify with protection‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of country subdivision flags in Africa (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)

Just closed to draftify and immediately recreated by the same editor. Thanks to the merged content it is no longer a G4, but none of the material added addresses the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivision flags in Africa. If this closes as draftify or delete, suggest protection to avoid this situation again. Star Mississippi 23:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is "flags of country subdivisions of Africa", and what is shown are the flags of country subdivisions of Africa. By draftifying it, you are removing a whole list of flags that some people may find useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a gallery anymore, I converted into informative tables. I hope this will help 2A02:A453:D05E:0:7859:2E95:3DE6:2A4A (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It remains un sourced, which is the chief issue. Please log in when you edit. Star Mississippi 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

many sources have been added now. This should not be deleted. Eehuiio (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review sourcing guidelines. fotw.info is not an acceptable source, nor are many of the others. This is why it remains functionally unsourced. Star Mississippi 13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is unsourced, it still has information that fits the title. Deleting it would be useless and unnecessary. Eehuiio (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify over current draft with historymerge (the current list article at least looks better). Eehuiio, as Star Mississippi notes, neither fotw.info nor crwflags.com nor others are reliable sources. For the purpose of this list's entries, I believe official government sources would be reasonable to use despite not necessarily being independent. The alternative is that every entry that is not reliably sourced is removed/commented out per WP:V/WP:BURDEN, which would remove most content from this article; historymerge would be needed in this case anyway. If this is moved to draft, then please put it through the Articles for Creation process per the AFC template once you believe that the flags are properly sourced; please don't move this back to mainspace in a deficient state where it is likely to be speedily deleted, etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This page also has other sources, so it isnt completely unsourced. Also, it still fulfills the title and is useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• post-relisting, confirm my draftification !vote, ref per comments of BD2412, etc. If it's fixed in draft and sent through AFC, then good. If it's left unfixed then so be it. If it's moved back to somewhere in mainspace in a deficient form (yes, protect away), then consider that a WP:G4 with broad latitude ref this AFD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator commentyes, the reopening was Involved, but I do not believe that is an issue as it's clearly not a discussion for a NAC. Cleaning up redirects now Star Mississippi 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we're all tired of whack a sock. @Eehuiio if you run into issues editing here, just remember to log in first. This has nothing to do with your edits. I've protected against logged out edits. If any admin thinks this is Involved, feel free to revert me. Star Mississippi 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: and salt. Draftification makes sense when an editor editors familiar with our notability guidelines offers are available to work on the article. Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. If we draftify this again, it'll bounce right back to mainspace as soon as we turn our head away, and we'll be back here in a couple of weeks for the 3rd nomination. Salting in this case is only meant to force the author to go throuigh AfC. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The rationale by Own makes sense to me and as a NP patroller I am frustrated when an editor ignores process. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Move-lock the draft and create-lock the page. The draft will either be worked on in draftspace or die on the vine. Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article. BD2412 T 21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: I agree with BD2412 that the page should be SALTed until the draft is accepted at AfC. I also believe that a comment to that effect, with a link to this discussion, should be added to the draft for the benefit of AfC reviewers. I disagree with OwenX that Draftification makes sense when an editor familiar with our notability guidelines offers to work on the article. Anyone can edit a draft in the draftspace. As a result of this AfD, there will also now be likelly be a set of eyes on the draft. Someone could also agree to work with the author. Edited 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC). I also disagree with the contention that Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. Draftification is actually the best way to force that editor to try to learn those P&Gs so that they can get the article through AfC. I share Lightburst's frustrat[ion] when an editor ignores process, but I do not believe that it is a valid reason to delete an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You make some good points, voorts, and I partially amended my !vote above accordingly. Yes, drafts are available for everyone to work on, and this AfD may very well bring more attention to the page. But while the AfC process was indeed intended to teach editors our P&G, the ability to move drafts into mainspace without going through AfC effectively negates that objective, allowing a SPA to circumvent the process. I'd gladly undelete the page to draft if a non-SPA requests it, or even history-merge with a new draft. But realistically, I doubt anyone but the original author has any interest in this page. I agree with BD2412's statement that Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article, but contend that this is exactly the case here, where sources do not establish notability, and the only one requesting a draft is an editor who doesn't seem concerned with our notability guidelines, and is simply waiting for an opportune moment to sneak the page back to mainspace. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a quick side note. Flags of regions of Egypt is completely unsourced. The absence of sourcing in the nominated article revealed that, and if the latter article were fixed, it could transclude into this one as is. BD2412 T 21:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article it is a part of the List of country subdivision flags, which is split into continents due to its size. If this article were deleted, this makes the list of country subdivision flags incomplete, while this is useless to readers. I'm converting from galleries to tables with reliable sources. 2A02:A453:D05E:0:8431:8C89:A5D1:202C (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Trari (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:GNG. I made this article at a time when WP:NFOOTY was a thing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable semi-professional footballer, who doesn’t pass WP:SIGCOV. All I found is statistics. Tau Corvi (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:17, 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Segun Toyin Dawodu (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 references are certainly not up to scratch, citations are limited (Semantic scholar lists only one paper with 100+ citations and attributes an h-index of 2), and I don't believe any of these fellowships confer inherent notability either. A previous AFD in 2012 reached no consensus, with just one keep vote. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Medicine, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough coverage for WP:GNG, and the three fellowships that are not of recent organizations don't seem to be selective enough to meet WP:PROF#C3. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the fellowship awards seem to be of the paid member sort as none of them seem to have been accompanied by any sort of press-release/announcement naming him as a member of a fellowship class (Fellow vs Honorary Fellow seems to be the distinction in these societies). If I am wrong about this, I am glad to change my vote to keep, as a prestigious fellowship from most of these organizations would be enough for WP:PROF#C3. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Michael is correct, does not meet WP:PROF#C3, or any other element of WP:NPROF. My reading is that the listed fellowships are all "pay-to-play" memberships at the "fellow" level, except for the American Academy of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine - but that organization doesn't have a program for honoring notables with fellowships at all. Probably it's a fellowship awarded for study or research, which is strictly run of the mill stuff not adding to notability. An editorial board membership within the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation doesn't suffice either - and I can't even confirm that as his name is not listed on the organization's website as an editor of anything. Qflib (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Delete per nomination. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 13:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Gajdošík (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)

Yet another long-unsourced article of a Slovak men's footballer who seems to have a minor career. According to Soccerway, his career in higher level clubs lasted between 107 and 800 minutes. He went missing from 2015 until 2023, but came back to play for third tier club FK Beluša, then disappeared again. I can't find any better source than passing mentions and database from my searches. Article fails WP:GNG overall. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Athel cb (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any secondary sources. He is also not mentioned in the articles of the clubs he played for, so there is nowhere to redirect. Tau Corvi (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:17, 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 redirect‎ to Cinéfondation#Prize winners. Consensus is against retention. As the film's article does not exist, a redirect thereto is not possible. Should that article come about, this can be retargeted as needed. Star Mississippi 16:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chidananda S Naik (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)

Some information on this guy: Chidananda made the sixteen minute short film Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know... in four days at the end of his one-year television course in the Film and Television Institute of India. The 16-minute film is based on a Kannada folk tale about a rooster not coming causing the sun not to rise in a village. It won the La Cinéf award at the Cannes Film Festival. This is the main content on doesn't warrant an article here. Anything (Essentially, just the award) you need about him is already online.

Almost every single source on the internet about Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know says short film wins Cannes award and nothing else. This is a case of WP:TOO EARLY. Why not wait till he directs feature films?

I am acting in good faith because two users see User_talk:Mushy_Yank#Notability_2 and second opinion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Does one film guarantee notability? claims that this person does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people).

The critical reception section is a stretch, no matter which Indian film won in Cannes, the comment would be the same. Another source about this guy's short film from Variety: [1] (again, only about the award). This AfD is a complete waste of time (caused by undo of redirect to Cinéfondation saying take it to AfD [2]) DareshMohan (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cinéfondation#Prize winners: A redirect seems like a good ATD so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#1. The significant award/honor here is 1st Prize - Premier Prix award from Cinéfondation, 2024 Cannes Film Festival, where the film was judged among 18 films globally. The award is well know and has it's own article on Wikipedia, Cinéfondation. There is coverage from multiple published sources that are also reliable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not fiercely opposed to keep if everyone agrees he is notable but I think it should be made clear that 1) the award itself has no page, it's the foundation that promotes it which has 2) it is technically the film (a student film) that receives the award, not its director. You don't think that if we decide ANYBIO applies in this case, we would establish a precedent setting the bar extremely low? I do. I don't think that WP:DIRECTOR appplies anyway, coverage on the film being insufficiently significant imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) On second thoughts "unstriking" (virtually) my comment: I do consider that "coverage on the film (is) insufficiently significant imv." for the director to meet WP:DIRECTOR requirements. Not unsignificant nor trivial and mentioning a significant award, yes but not enough at least for WP:DIRECTOR, I should think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The foundation is notable for the award it gives out. It was started in 1998 and the award has been given annually since then. The award, technically, belongs to the director for being the brains behind it, which is why the director's name is mentioned in the 2024 Cannes Film Festival and Cinéfondation article instead of the producer's name. Nandi Awards is only significant in Andhra Pradesh, whereas Cinéfondation brings coverage from Variety (magazine) as well as Hindustan Times, which would you consider a more popular award now?

  Coverage on the film being insufficiently significant? Here are some reliable sources that explicitly mention the film's name in the title: [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Expecting a breakdown, analysis or a review for a film that has only been screened once(AFAIK) is absurd. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are some articles that are indeed significant in the links you provided here. Not commenting on the rest, if I may. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But since you kindly asked me (not sure the question was meaningful or not ironic): yes, obviously I find the Nandi way more "popular" than the Cinéfondation premier prix, yes. That's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. Here, the fact that this is a student short film is for me, so far, an issue, and I still favour a redirect, but as I said, not fiercely opposed to keep, especially in light of the sources you added presented here (most of them also being on the page, except if I am not mistaken, the article in the New India Express and DDNews). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) (edited my comment for clarification as my comment may have been misleading . Also adding that it's very likely that among the journalists or papers who mentioned the award and interviewed the director, not many if any at all have seen the film; and for me, this too is a problem; basically the question remains: can ANYBIO apply if the award, significant or not, is attributed to the work? Can WP:DIRECTOR apply in a case where coverage, although somehow significant as it addresses the film, is only mentions of the plot, the award, and in some sources of a few facts about production? Most sources are indeed generally reliable, although various articles are not being bylined, which I personally don't mind but is regularly pointed out negatively when it comes to Indian film, some users considering such coverage unreliable as a rule (I don't :D). I am still not sure, and still consider a redirect to be the best outcome. Maybe it's absurd to require further analysis of the work but can we really bypass that requirement just because the film has only been screened in Cannes, and not by the journalists who wrote the article, and is short? Not sure. Sorry for the cascading clarifications. I don't think I will change my mind from now, nor positively nor negatively. Even if one considers that it's the film after all that's notable and the article about the director is only here as a form of substitute for the article about the short, I am not certain that the premier prix at Cinéfondation, although significant, can be considered a major award nor that the coverage is substantial enough. Maybe the said coverage cannot be more than what it is now for obvious reasons, maybe, but still. I've done, again, some further searching and there's also coverage in French: https://lepetitjournal.com/inde/actualites/triomphe-indien-au-festival-de-cannes-2024-386190 or this blog; https://www.inde-cineskope.com/2024/05/cannes-2024-payal-kapadia-et-linde.html Good luck.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? There are many reliable sources for the subject and the film apart from the the six I have cited.

  The coverage that follows from someone meeting an additional criteria is just a bonus. Most Olympic athletes, older MLAs, sports personalities, politicians and judges do not have significant coverage. There are many articles with only database entries and primary sources as references simply because they meet an additional criteria and are presumed to be notable. The basic criterion that has been followed until now is that if an award has a standalone article and someone has received that award, they are presumed to be notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? is a very undue, rude and aggressive comment. I've searched for sources extensively THREE OR FOUR TIMES. Just look at my comments (and at 2 other venues) and presented sources myself (you're welcome). Again, the award has no page, and the film received the award, not him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think that a regional award is more popular than Cinéfondation and that there is no substantial coverage when the coverage is not even required, then I cant help you. Ciao Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been posted on Talk:Cannes Film Festival, Talk:2024 Cannes Film Festival, Talk:Cinéfondation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film festivals task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards to draw a wider range of editors for discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: So he won a sidebar competition at Cannes. The film might be notable, this individual isn't. Redirect to the film's article, if it's deemed notable. This is too early to have a wikipedia article for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clear pass of ANYBIO #1. If I were able to assess and read the non-English language sources, I'm confident there would be a clear NBASIC pass as well. ANYBIO doesn't require significant coverage of the person outside of the work, by the way - that is pretty much the whole point of that criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Newimpartial: Here is the sources in Indian language [9] which also just say that the film won the award. So is the short film notable or him notable -- I would say the short film maybe. DareshMohan (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And I would agree with you, DareshMohan. ANYBIO clearly states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (emphasis mine), while all sources mention that the film received the award. And while I would certainly admit that for a student short film the award is significant, I wouldn't transfer that significance to the person directly. Even regarding the film, it is judged as a student film and I personally am reluctant to consider that in itself the award (although clearly an achievement) is enough to make the short notable (the notability for films is more strict and the award needs to be considered a major award, which this one is not imv). As for the director, even less so, then. Of course, he directed it, but then WP:DIRECTOR would be the relevant guideline. And see my view about that guideline applying or not, above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe you both (Mushy Yank and DareshMohan) are misreading WP:DIRECTOR, the point of which is that when the works attributable to a particular creator are notable, that makes their creator notable. This is a major, and well-documented, limitation to the WP:NOTINHERITED principle, which continues to apply in the other direction - the non-notable films of a notable director are not necessarily notable.

  What is more, your interptetation of ANYBIO #1 does not, I think, reflect the general understanding. While for collective works, the distinction betweent the work and its creators may be significant for notability. However, the idea that the sole author of a book that wins a major award could somehow not therefore be notable does not reflect a coherent reading of NCREATIVE, in my view (which I believe is the general one). A film of this kind, where the director is universally regarded as its creator, follows the same logic as a book IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to insist, but I think we've read WP:DIRECTOR quite correctly: our point is precisely that we don't think (at leat in my case) the evidence proving that that short student film is notable (work, singular, not plural in the present case) is compelling either, given the type of coverage or and the nature of the award it received. I've already repeated that various times. As for ANYBIO, feel free to change the wording or phrasing of the guideline if you think it's too limitative, but I've quoted the current one and it's pretty clear. The person has to receive the award and the said award (concerning persons, obviously) needs to be both well-known and significant. If you think that evidence shows that the work is clearly notable according to the guideline, let's agree to disagree. If you think that the award received by a film can be automatically transferred to its director and that this is the general and correct view, sure, I understand but that's not what the guideline says. If you think that that award is well-known and significant, sure, maybe, regarding student short/medium length films but certainly not for the notability of a "director" (who was still a student when he received it). That is for me setting the interpretative bar slightly too low but as I said above, not fiercely opposed to keep this if everyone agrees this inclusive interpretation is acceptable and the coverage about the film show it's a notable work. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any reasonable doubt that Sunflowers... is a notable film. It clearly meets WP:NFILM #3, and I have seen for myself the multiple reliable sources documenting this claim to notability.

  And I will say again: the point of WP:CREATIVE, whether for authors or filmmakers, is to offer guidance for the atypical case documented at WP:INHERITED - people who are specifically responsible for a notable creative work, whether as authors or as film directors, are therefore notable. That's what a significant or well-known work is - a notable one - and there is no consensus to change this well-established standard to require more than one work for this principle to apply. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify: I never said that more than one work is needed to meet WP:DIRECTOR nor did I mention WP:INHERITED myself (I never do). That's not my point. One notable work is enough imv. But, allow me to repeat myself one last time, WP:NFILM#3, that you mention, requires a MAJOR award, that's the word in the guideline. Major. Again, the Cinéfondation Premier prix is certainly an achievement for a student film but I wouldn't call it a major award. (See this, for example). And I find it therefore quite reasonable, even considering the existing coverage, to doubt whether that student short film is notable enough according to the requirements of Wikipedia. If it is not, a redirect for its student-director seems to be, so far, the kindest outcome imv. If everyone thinks it is, feel free to create the page about that short student film. I for one, would wait for its director to become a professional one and/or for the short film to attract in-depth attention from reviewers who might have watched it. But that's just me. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and discussion is continuing up to the time of relisting. We have basically two very different interpretations of policies and that is not easy to reconcile.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have invited Martineden83, Οἶδα, Bearcat, Extended Cut, The One I Left, ZoolverLaurenschneider210, Jenny8lee, Sj and Fuzheado to draw a wider range of informed but uninvolved editors to this discussion as it has been relisted without any further comments. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The discussion above seems rather like hair-splitting to me. The question of whether the award is given "to the film" or "to the filmmaker" is a moot point that has nothing to do with notability vis-à-vis film awards, for starters — regardless of whether the award is technically "for the film" or "for the filmmaker", the filmmaker is still the one who has to walk up on stage to accept it and give a thank-you speech either way, because the film is not itself a sentient entity, so that argument is introducing a meaningless distinction. For another thing, the question of whether our article about Cinéfondation is "about the award" or "about the organization that presents the award" is also a meaningless and irrelevant distinction, because you could make that same "how much is or isn't this article about the event vs. about the organization that presents the event" argument about every single article we have about any event at all, so that's just not a meaningful point of debate when it comes to questions of whether an award makes its winners notable or not. And finally, the award was presented at Cannes, which is one of the most famous and notable film festivals in the world.
  To be fair, not all of the films or directors listed in the Cinéfondation article have articles yet, but that's also not a notability issue — any of them can, and will, have articles if and when somebody gets around to writing articles about them. And there is additionally no rule that filmmakers always have to have made feature films before they become eligible for Wikipedia articles — short films do tend to be harder to write good, GNG-compliant articles about, since they tend to get less coverage than feature films do, but films are not automatically non-notable just because they're short, and can absolutely still pass notability criteria (such as winning notability-making awards) just the same, so "short vs. feature" doesn't impact notability criteria for films or their makers either: that's a question of whether you can support the article with decent sources or not, and not a question of the film's length itself.
  So, really, what it comes down to is whether the article features enough WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to properly establish that notability criteria have been met — and while I'd suggest replacing footnote #7 with a secondary source instead of a primary one, all of the other six footnotes are just fine and absolutely add up to enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – First place short at a sidebar is not significant coverage of the director. The award guarantees a future slot higher up in the Cannes program for a first feature, but until then the existing coverage pertains to the film. If we were discussing a winner of the Caméra d'or, Prix Un Certain Regard or Palme d'Or du Court Métrage this would be different. But it feels like we've gone several notches down and called it a major award because it's Cannes adjacent. An article for the film would however pass WP:GNG. Οἶδα (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Director's Fortnight, the Semaine de la critique and the Queer Palm, all of which are clearly notability-making awards presented at Cannes, are also sidebars rather than "the main competition" — so if the word "sidebar" were any kind of notability extinguisher on its own, at least half of all the film articles we have whose notability is Cannes-derived would have to be deleted. The distinction that matters when it comes to Cannes is festival vs. market, not festival main program vs festival sidebar program. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My contention was that the Cinéfondation sidebar is particularly eclipsed by the official selection and other sections. I do not believe first place at Cinéfondation is a major award conferring significant coverage to the director themself. Unfortunately I do not believe this matter will be resolved any deeper than the 'hair-splitting' discussion that already played out above. So I will resign the issue to my vote. Οἶδα (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the notability guideline page for BLPs does not mention anywhere that significant coverage is a requirement for someone to pass WP:DIRECTOR or WP:ANYBIO. I believe we have more content about Chidananda S Naik than about the short film that won the award, so redirecting would only result in the loss of content, leaving us with a very short stub article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are merely repeating the discussion Mushy Yank already developed above. Reply there. Οἶδα (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Creating an article for the film and redirecting to that seems reasonable Laurenschneider210 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As an inclusionist, this seems fine, as does a rdr to the film for now. Either way, it could certainly be fleshed out with more information as it exists. – SJ + 10:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Security Office (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)

Delete or merge into classified information in the United States. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is (a) a real functional part of the U.S. federal government (albeit distributed across multiple arms of government), (b) serves a crucial part in the keeping of secrets, and (c) attested to by multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide the multiple reliable sources that establish notability? The ones currently in the article are not secondary sources that we would use to establish notability, nor do they include WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Longhornsg (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a short article. Thus Merge to Classified information in the United States while also copying the data to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of State and National Security Council. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if even one Wikipedian volunteers to do the legwork. I took under ten minutes and hit up Google and Google Scholar. I found several sources that look promising and linked to them on the article talk page here: [10]. I have not perused any of these sources in detail, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them aren't usable, but I'm satisfied enough that enough reliable sourcing to justify an article on this topic exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources provided are either additional recitations of the same definition that do not address WP:NOTDICT or are WP:TRIVIALMENTION that do not address WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not one of those secondary sources is about the Special Security Office. The Rise of the Mavericks book is only about the Air Force branch. Say ocean again (talk) 08:24, 13 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!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to classified information in the United States. Fails WP:ORG. There's no inherited notability for being related to multiple arms of the US government. Say ocean again (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:22, 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. Star Mississippi 12:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naše novine (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)

It existed, but I couldn't find sources to add confirming it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree fully with what @Boleyn: said. Боки ☎ ✎ 09:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per intro. cmt. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 12:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Dorta (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 about not notable lawyer. Note- Article was created by the subject. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Florida. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: PROMO for a lawyer, no different of a career than any other thousands of such people across the country. Nothing notable that i can see... Went to school, graduated and works as a lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. No secondary sources are present discussing the subject in depth. Let'srun (talk) 00:56, 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. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ^talk 05:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 20–25 light-years (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)

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

List of star systems within 25–30 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of star systems within 30–35 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of star systems within 35–40 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of star systems within 40–45 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of star systems within 45–50 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of star systems within 50–55 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of star systems within 55–60 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of star systems within 60–65 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of star systems within 65–70 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of star systems within 70–75 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of star systems within 75–80 light-years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

 Administrator note The previous nomination was an April Fool's joke, so I am removing the "previous AFDs" box. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think these could be consolidated a bit, perhaps in 10 ly segments rather than 5, but this seems like a valid navigational and informational list; most of the stars have their own articles and there's good data and sourcing in the tables, so this is not just a directory. It's a key component of Lists of stars. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced info, focusing on what is most relevant to the denizens of Planet Earth rather than on every solar object show these list articles are clearly not a directory of everything in the universe. I can think of better ways to organize the information, but that's clearly an editorial decision rather than a NOT issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all listing all the star systems in one list would be too long, so this is a logical way to divide them. Valid encyclopedic information. Dream Focus 18:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fits WP:LISTPURP and is a useful navigational source for nearby stars and star systems. Procyon117 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all that is what encyclopedias are for, still would like if the segments were by 10 ly Teixant (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All these lists are very useful, provide navigation into pages and have valuable information, hence satisfy the purpose of a list. Don't see any violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY here, it would be a violation if we were listing all stars up to thousands of light-years e.g. List of star systems within 5,000–5,500 light-years, which is not the case.

21 Andromedae (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the number of stars on each page should increase roughly with the cube of the distance, so the later lists are clearly incomplete. A cut-off mark for building these lists is lacking; the local neighborhood of the Sun is variously defined from 12 pc out to 2 kpc, so these could extend our quite a ways. Praemonitus (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW. 88.97.195.160 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:snow. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 19:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as they don't inherently fall into WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ships & Space_(Edits) 22:48, 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 merge‎ to USA Rugby League#New England Immortals. Star Mississippi 12:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New England Immortals (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)

No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Sources in the article are primary and/or affiliated. Does not turn up any news media coverage in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to USA Rugby League#New England Immortals. Mn1548 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would accept that merge as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - it looks like this could perhaps have been WP:BLARed rather than being brought to AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill I thought it had been PROD'd but maybe I misread the history. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 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 redirect‎ to Suzerain (video game). Owen× ☎ 12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Rayne (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 undone. Zero indication of notability. No coverage by any reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article for deletion has been compared to nazism. That's Godwin's law for you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw that you nominated me for the deletion of my post about a video game character named Anton Rayne. We cannot have coverage of too many sources when the character is only text-based. I did an undone redirect since I find it unfair that the character cannot have a wiki. The source used was mostly from the game's codex (which you can read in-game this is just an online version) and their developers so it is a reliable source, site from Torpor Games themselves(https://codex.torporgames.com/). All information on the character is really what games tell you about him and nothing added more. I really find it unfair since Wikipedia is supposed to be a dictionary of everything not just important characters. This character is a community loved one as are all others. I saw the complaints and comparisons to nazism. I of course dont justify it, it is probably a "Suzerain" fan like me.

I am looking foward to a response, Andrew(AntonRad) AntonRad (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community reception towards a character is generally irrelevant on Wikipedia, as we are not a fandom site. Video game characters (or anything, for that matter) generally only get articles if there is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I understand if you might be frustrated or find it unfair that your article was nominated for deletion, but this has been the widely accepted standard for a long time. See WP:GNG. λ NegativeMP1 16:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I agree we need to look at the characters objectively and writing Anton like that needs info mostly from the games codex which i did, but i struggle to understand that Anton Rayne was mentioned in suzerain video game wiki and its not ok to write a short article about the games protagonist?

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Suzerain (video game): Redirect to the game, I don't find critical discussion of the character in any media. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello,

  I appreciate you concern about redirection and the characters media popularity, but this was made just for those who did read Suzerain video game article to click on Anton Rayne and find out about him with more information about the games protagonist, but thanks for the comment

  Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per the nominator. The article creator seems to completely misunderstand what an average article for a video game character is supposed to be, and that Wikipedia is not a fandom site. Seeing the nomination get compared to Nazism made my day, though. λ NegativeMP1 16:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello,

  I hope i didnt do too bad to be honest. I didnt want it to be seen as a fandom page, as i wanted it to be mostly from games codex. Anton Rayne is mentioned in Suzerain wiki page and i thought it would be good to create one for the protagonist.

  Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: Nonsense article. No indication of notability at all. Mostly copied from https://suzerain.fandom.comview_html.php?sq=covid19&lang=en&q=Anton_Rayne; the rest was obviously AI-generated. C F A 💬 16:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello,

  thank you for the comment. You are not right in the first part its not mostly copied from https://suzerain.fandom.comview_html.php?sq=covid19&lang=en&q=Anton_Rayne since that is not that much of a reliable source, side from the characters codex, whats mostly copied from is the characters codex in game which can be found on Torpors website! As for this the "rest was obviously AI-generated" AI doesnt even know to write about Suzerain i think, but i ll give it to ya the section for Antons policies really looks AI.

  Best, Andrew. AntonRad (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nomination fails BEFORE; a check of Google News shows a piece in PC Gamer with an in-depth review of the game explaining this character. There are other hits, not an overwhelming number and some of them look iffy, but clearly not zero easy-to-find RS coverage. We know from Commander Shepard that it's possible to write an article about the role a player assumes in an RPG game, so really, the proper assertion here should be that there's not enough to cover about Rayne as a separate character article, aside from the game, not that no coverage exists. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello,

  i appreciate your honesty and i do agree to you to some point. Since it Anton Rayne is mentioned in suzerain wiki article i think it was ok to make one about him. There's not enough to cover about Rayne as a separate character article, which is true to be fair but that's exactly why i wrote it from the players perspective, since player does everything Anton does in Suzerain.

  Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Suzerain (video game) - What sources there are specifically on this character are not enough to justify a split from the main topic of the game. The source found by Jclemens can be added to the main game article, which needs to have its reception section beefed up, but nothing from this current article should be merged, as it is devoid of any reliable, secondary sources actually supporting any of it. Rorshacma (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello,

  i somewhat agree but we shouldn't split the topic of the game just at least make it so this article or a brief article is present at suzerain(video-game)wiki page.

  Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The article itself smacks of ChatGPT, and fails WP:NOT even before we get to whether it's notable (which it probably isn't). Please "be better" when contributing articles (and no response is necessary to this, I will not be swayed either way). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey man, i know you said not to respond but this was my first article every i will try to do better

  Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per all. I hope that the article creator tries to learn more about Wikipedia. Where other fan wikis are based on fan interpretation of works, Wikipedia articles are built from reliable sources, like journalists and book authors. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]