Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 01	July 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kariokskoe of battle[edit]

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

A minor skirmish at best. Existing citations are all non-independent, 19th-century primary sources, and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's also nearly incomprehensible. -- asilvering (talk) 18:47, 8 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. I'm closing this as No consensus as the Keeps are Weak Keeps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Unity Football Alliance[edit]

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

An "international football" organization article that is a WP:HOAX in its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on GNG, but this is very clearly not a hoax. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As but one example: there is a "Karen" team listed under Asia, but it is a local group in Minnesota. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You are likely unaware that the Karen are an ethnic group from Myanmar who have a diaspora in Minneapolis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The Karen Football Association, which you can find can find plenty of details about through internet searches are a Karen diaspora group based in Minneapolis. Sherms95 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The Kashmir team is a local club in Bradford. The organization (and the article) pretense to be "national teams for sub-national entities", but it isn't; it's a few random local clubs with ethnic ties that signed up for a press release with this group. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It may not be HOAX, but it didn't even organize any competition to be relevant. Svartner (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2024

That's not true - the BBC even lists Chagos as the winner of one of their competitions: [1] SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most of the coverage isn't independent, but there's some coverage, including from Bradford, [2], BBC mentions, the Non-League Football Paper, and the nomination was based on a mis-understanding. SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They basically do not organize any relevant competitions, a single mention does not prevent failure in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 18 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!} 23:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above. This is clearly not a hoax, and SportingFlyer makes a good point. It's weak, admittedly, but it's a keep for me right now. Anwegmann (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a hoax, because it conflates "national team" with "expat team", and relies on puffery from primary sources to the degree that it makes claims that are demonstrably false. Some actual organization may exist; but it is entirely "we let people put out press releases that pretense to importance which we do not have". Walsh90210 (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, a hoax is generally something that's completely fictional, whereas this is an actual organisation similar to ConIFA. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There is some coverage of this alliance, [3], [4], talk about it but are not the primary subject of the article. Forbes article directly about the group [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the only hoax that I can see here, is this nomination. Was there a BEFORE? There's references - and here's another one. Nfitz (talk) 16:57, 9 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 06:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Thibaut[edit]

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

Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [6]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Language. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a promotion for his business, with no in-depth coverage that would support GNG, neither in the article nor found elsewhere. It doesn't help that two of the three footnotes have the same url and that the further reading links are all deadlink copies of press coverage selected for display by the same business. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacking significant coverage and as such fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceballs (demogroup)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There is significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], but that's only one source of unclear reliability. toweli (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and Norway. toweli (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 25 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!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A stub from 2006 without reliable sources, virtually no reader value. Existence can be mention in a demogroup history article. IgelRM (talk) 21:01, 7 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!} 07:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pears Foundation[edit]

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

I searched for some independent, reliable secondary sources to established this organisation's notability but it mostly just returned listings and a few press releases so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this subject is not notable. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 25 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!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see only WP:ROTM coverage in the style of "rich dude gives some money to [thing]". This lacks depth and is just a press release. Can't find any secondary criticism or discussion. BrigadierG (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks significant coverage. WP:BEFORE returned only primary sources. Among the sources cited in the article only two seem reliable and one of those two is about the Pears property company not Pear Foundation. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:25, 3 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 06:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melon Dezign[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There is significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], but that's only one source of unclear reliability. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Denmark, and France. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any other significant coverage of the group. The only somewhat reliable mention I've found is this article related to the Beatles which is not enough to establish notability.Uffda608 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to prove that the subject is eligible for entry here. Standing on one source since its creation in 2004 yet no available sources that could improve it. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:31, 3 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 German Figure Skating Championships#Men. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hopfes[edit]

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

Non-notable figure 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. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some sources which mention the subject as a coach and skater such as [[7]] and [[8]]. Not sure if it merits being kept but this is not uncontroversial. Let'srun (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligiblle for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to German Figure Skating Championships#Men. Per WP:NSKATE figure skater has to win their country's senior national championships. Hopfes' best result in the German Championships was 2nd place. WP:SIGCOV also not met. Tau Corvi (talk) 12:56, 9 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 Slovak Figure Skating Championships#Women. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Kunová[edit]

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

Non-notable figure 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. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Slovakia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There are two interlanguage Wikipedia in German and Japanese, but neither of them provide significant coverage in reliable sources. This article has been deleted from Slovak Wikipedia in 2009, possibly due to BLP concerns. My Google came up with other women of the same name than this figure skater, failing WP:V too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doesn't the win at the Slovak Figure Skating Championships qualify the subject for a WP:NSKATE pass? That being said, the subject may still not meet WP:GNG, but this is not uncontroversial. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was told over and over that WP:NSKATE is merely a guideline, and in this case, one national gold medal didn't lead to any sort of notability or significant coverage. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. However, the subject meets that guideline so why would you cite it in your nomination statement as a reason to delete the article? Let'srun (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slovak Figure Skating Championships#Women. Despite she won the 2011 Slovak Championship, which meet WP:NSKATE, she does not pass WP:SIGCOV. The only secondary source I could find is [9] Tau Corvi (talk) 13:47, 9 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 Golden Bear of Zagreb#Women's singles 2. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Diewald[edit]

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

Non-notable figure 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. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed the PROD as I am concerned with the BEFORE being conducted by the nom. Let'srun (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Golden Bear of Zagreb#Women's singles 2 as that was her best result. Doesn't meet WP:NSKATE. I only found 2 RS and that doesn't seem to be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV: [10] [11] Tau Corvi (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Whitting[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Montenegro, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 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!} 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Google news comes up with primary sources like gov.uk or passing mentions in other sources. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 7 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 Frequency (marketing)#Frequency capping. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Session capping[edit]

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

Article is dependent on a single reference that is browser session preservation and migration (BSPM) infrastructure, and does not have the term "session capping" anywhere in the document. Subsequent searches through Google and other reputable resources. The only loose references on session capping can be found at there places https://www.thedrum.com/industryinsights/2017/03/08/the-importance-getting-creative-when-optimising-your-programmatic-ads and https://forum.revive-adserver.com/topic/3018-an-ad-is-not-returned-on-first-pageview-when-banner-session-capping-is-enabled/, both of which are not reliable sources to reference. Additionally, there is a page Frequency (marketing) that encompasses this topic, whic I've already gone ahead to copy over. Erictleung (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would have just been WP:BOLD and redirected the page without opening an AfD. The page is a short and poorly referenced stub; given the content has already been moved, a Redirect to Frequency (marketing)#Frequency capping is the only thing left to do. Broc (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment. I did try and just remove it, but it was reverted and I was told current protocol says to opening an AfD; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Session_capping&oldid=1211953598. But I would agree with your solution to remove and then redirect. Erictleung (talk) 22:22, 24 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!} 23:22, 25 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!} 23:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this stub as suggested above, since the content has already been moved. -- asilvering (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypo (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC with no chart activity, discography, or notable label work, while any coverage is only about his death. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage of the murder, trial and suspect are what I find. Nothing about the musician while he was alive, other than an article about who he was dating. None of these things contribute to musical notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems more interested in the musician's death than their actual career. There's no mention of chart success, albums, or major label involvement. It might be better placed elsewhere. Waqar💬 17:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've seen this many times. The murder of a rapper gets some news coverage as a crime, but that does not make the rapper notable unless the coverage satisfies WP:VICTIM, and that is not happening here. Meanwhile, the music he made when alive received no coverage so he does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that only the murder of Hypo received significant coverage. So per WP:SUSTAINED reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event (his death). Tau Corvi (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above delete reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushra Aftab (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 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 2024 United States Senate election in Montana. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sheehy (American politician)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. I would like to see this restored as a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Montana, but my attempt to redirect this was reverted (as was a previous attempt) and this is my best option. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Montana. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. A redirect to the election page is a usual and appropriate outcome for a statewide candidate. No prejudice for restoring once and if the candidate wins an election to a page that meets WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- does not meet GNG so a redirect is the logical choice. Restore if elected.- Tbennert (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- does not meet GNG and this article has possibly been made to boost his popularity among Republicans.Radiohist (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. I would also support the redirect as mentioned by others.Intothat darkness 14:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, shouldn't have been restored to mainspace. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect per nomination and Enos733. Wikishovel (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect I really disagree with the belief that U.S. Senate nominees in competitive states should be considered automatically notable. They seem notable at the time, but if/when they lose, it becomes evident that they are not. I mean really, is anyone searching for Theresa Greenfield anymore? Regardless, even among Senate nominees, Sheehy doesn't seem especially notable; he hasn't gotten as much coverage as someone like Bernie Moreno. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect no sustained notability yet. SportingFlyer T·C 16:10, 7 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. WP:SNOW keep; withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flemeth[edit]

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

I tried to do BEFORE, but most of them are just passing mentionsthat talk about Flemeth or trivial content. The onlt SIGCOV we got is the scholar "Powerful elderly characters in video games: Flemeth of Dragon Age", but I don't think it is enough to carry the article's notability. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 23:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the nomination is discounting secondary source which do not have Flemeth as their main topic, which is not in keeping with WP:SIGCOV. We do have enough reception and analysis by secondary sources to write a full article right now, which is exactly what the notability guideline requires. Granted, some of the coverage works equally well for Flemeth the character as it does for the Dragon Age game, but that then means we would have a question of WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. And I personally think that this topic is better covered here, as it would be too detailed for the main Dragon Age article. The mentioned article "Powerful elderly characters in video games: Flemeth of Dragon Age", together with the chapter in Ctrl-Alt-Play: Essays on Control in Video Gaming and Stang's "The Broodmother as Monstrous-Feminine—Abject Maternity in Video Games" alone provide enough coverage, I do not find this coverage trivial. Much more so taking the other sources both present in the article and in the searches into account. Daranios (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make the notability question even clearer, this academic publication, Kansanperinne 2.0, has a 3-page chapter dedicated to Flemeth (p. 346-349), with much the same discussion as the other academic sources (complex character, unusual traits for an elder female character), plus more on p. 340, 357, 359. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find right there. I feel like I'm convinced now that the article could be notable; however I wouldn't withdraw to avoid a super vote outcome. Many thanks. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no !votes for deletion, redirection, or merging, there would be no supervote concerns. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy. Daranios (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source analysis provided by Daranios. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Per Cukie Gherkin, there are no supervote concerns here, and nom can safely withdraw without issue. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I am satisfied with the recent findings. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:04, 5 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 Wayne Rooney. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Rooney[edit]

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

I believe that the subject fails WP:GNG (another case of WP:TOOEARLY). Let's just take a step back here. Are we being serious? Why is a 14 year old playing in an academy getting a Wikipedia article? There is nothing to suggest this kid will be a professional one day. He's just Wayne Rooney's kid playing for Man United's academy. There is no article about Cristiano Ronaldo Jr., although there is arguably more coverage there. Are we gonna make articles for all football-playing sons of famous footballers? I think we need to really take a step back and think before we make such articles way too early.
Short: I don't think Kai Rooney is notable.
I wouldn't be against either merging this to Wayne Rooney or just draftifying and seeing how the next few years go (with someone upkeeping the draft as time passes). Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article was created by the same user who created Cristiano Ronaldo Jr — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo Jr as this may be a very similar situation. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Wayne Rooney. In addition to too early and GNG, this is also a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Wayne Rooney - My personal view on articles on minors is that they need to be held to a higher standard than other BLPs, since a Wikipedia article has the potential to irrevocably destroy the subject's private life. Another thing weighing against this is that, even when there were top-level-game appearance criteria in WP:NSPORT, U## leagues (read: leagues specifically for minors) were never considered acceptable. I'm not impressed with the sourcing here, as it seems to be entirely routine stuff only being amplified because of his parents' notoriety. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Wayne Rooney—I personally think these types of articles are useless. I also agree with Jéské Couriano above. Anwegmann (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wayne Rooney as we did with previous similar AfD cases, such as Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. History is preserved if Kai Rooney gets media attention as he grows up. If this AfD resulted in redirect, I also would recommend to protect the redirect page to prevent future creation. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone Peak[edit]

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

No sources of notability in article or available on the web. It mostly lists facts from a table in a catalog. See WP:NOTCATALOG Gumgl (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating a bundle of 107 articles for deletion. These were all created by one user in late 2016 with the same format. The only source in all the articles beyond the subjects' manufacturer's listing page is World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2003-04. This seems to clearly go against the WP:DIRECTORY policy. I fly paragliders and the lifespan of a model is at most 10 years after its production/release although this upper bound is very rare. The vast majority cease to be used after ~6 years for safety concerns (aging of the fabric). Therefore at the time of creation, all the data was about models at least 13 years in the past, and thus obsolete and long forgotten. None of the models listed below have any notoriety nor any relevance today in an industry/sport with dozens of brands each releasing multiple models every year. Recent models might actually have a web presence with reviews and news articles on the Internet, but none of the models below do as they largely predate the popularization of the Internet.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I spot-checked two (Trekking Carver, Windtech Coral) which had nothing close to notability in a search, though I did find a list of Trekking aircraft. I'm loathe to !vote delete on all of these, though, without reviewing them, which is the problem with these bulk nominations. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added 6 more from Gradient. Note that this list is not exhaustive, there would be about as many articles of paramotors and another equal amount about hang gliders that are in the same situation but since I am more familiar with paragliders I decided to start there. Gumgl (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Why hasn't the author been notified?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is my first time following the WP:AFDHOWTO process and I somehow glanced over that step. Looks like you took care of it, thanks. Gumgl (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I spot-checked one article for each brand and the nom's representation is accurate. It would be a huge waste of time to de-bundle these. Suggest the nom use WP:PROD next time if possible. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 8 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 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group Headquarters and Signal Squadron[edit]

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

The article contains one reference, which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. Because almost nothing is sourced, there's no point in making an effort to merge material. Indefatigable (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group: There is absolutely nothing significant about the article. Simply redirect to the major article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:34, 4 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 Philadelphia Big 5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph's–Temple rivalry[edit]

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

This article is largely unsourced original research. I found some articles about rivalries within the Philadelphia Big 5, but nothing about these two schools specifically. Any content about this rivalry specifically should probably be added to Philadelphia Big 5 instead. This was dePRODed without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage exists at [[12]] and [[13]]. At the very least, this should probably be merged with Philadelphia Big 5 rather than outright deleted. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] is about the coaches of the two teams. [2] is more about the Philadelphia Big 5. I think that it's a stretch to say that there's coverage from either of these two sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I am comfortable with merging with Philadelphia Big 5. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on a merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Philadelphia Big 5: Subject does not nearly meet the GNG on its own but the coverage above can be included as part of the article on the Big 5. Let'srun (talk) 23:59, 4 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 Israel–Hamas war protests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Gazi University protests[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, non Wiki worthy news event only covered by Turkish media. Creator has a history of pro-Kurdish agenda editing and creation of articles generally negative of Turkey, and Turkish government Ecrusized (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Israel–Hamas war protests: No lasting coverage. WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps, this and the other related article could also be merged to form Israel–Hamas war protests in Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless some source can show that these protests are either 1) unique or 2) linkable to some thread or trend in Turkish etc. history other than the current pro-Palestine protests, the way the Murder of Ahmaud Arbery can be linked to Black Lives Matter and similar threads in American history. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:25, 6 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 after the nominator changed their view. Owen× ☎ 07:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sporgery[edit]

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

Wholly non-notable, and seemingly not a clearly independent concept. I think this article only exists for the very incidental Scientology connection. Remsense诉 22:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Remsense诉 22:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems like it would be a notable concept, but all I can find are blogs, WP mirrors, and archives of Usenet discussions. References cited are all from 1998-99, unsurprisingly. I could maybe live with a redirect to Spamming or a partial merge with the "In different media" section of that article, if the Scientology connections were removed or slimmed down to a sentence or two. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I spent quite a bit of time reading articles related to this subject and found that the term sporgery has long been added to the internet lexicon. Though its origins and usage are related to Usenet newsgroups (1990s), which are in practice rarely used nowadays, I found the use of the term several times in the waning and post-usenet era (2000+). I have updated the article accordingly, as well as updating the related articles alt.religion.scientology and Scientology and the Internet. There were multiple sources I did not add, which mentioned sporgery in their discussions about "language"; they were brief mentions, but I found it interesting they even used the term in their examples, since it seems obscure, but perhaps not as obscure as first thought. (Note that sporgery is used in 5 non-Scientology-related Wikipedia articles. ) There were other contemporary sources I was unsuccessful accessing, such as a SpringerLink item (Wikipedia Library's subscription to Springer has expired) which would add to the contemporary sources now cited in the article—such as Koch, Harley, and Hicks—bringing the topic up to a verifiable level of passing WP:GNG, which wasn't obvious in the version that was nominated for AfD.
If, however, this AfD leans towards "not-Keep", then I would suggest dumping (merging) the majority of the content underneath alt.religion.scientology § Flooding the newsgroup (where I can clean that up), and the generic content into Newsgroup spam. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice sleuthing. I wouldn't have nominated the article if I came across it in this state, suffice it to say. Remsense诉 08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a validly referenced historical "old Internet" topic. Geschichte (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to Grorp for the WP:HEY save. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 8 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!} 23:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Chatham[edit]

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

Career minor-league player who last played professionally in April 2022, topped out in Triple-A. Not notable to warrant a Wikipedia page; citations fall in line with what is expected to be published about any minor-league professional athlete. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage: [14] [15] [16] [17]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The first two sources proffered by BeanieFan11, combined with [[18]] and [[19]] each provide multiple paragraphs of WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SIGCOV passes with ease. The article needs to edit the reference list. To the above references I may add two more [20], [21] Tau Corvi (talk) 01:57, 9 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× ☎ 20:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Lanham[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. This is a stub that I created when we presumed notability for those who played in the NFL. (Lanham appeared in two games as a lineman for Louisville, one in 1922 and one in 1923.) The presumption was revoked by community-wide consensus, and I have searched extensively (including searches in the Louisville newspaper) for SIGCOV without success. (Unfortunately, there is no obvious redirect target. Cbl62 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nowhere near a significant career or accomplishments with a corresponding lack of sources. Message me if someone suspects otherwise. Geschichte (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. The only source is a database. Let'srun (talk) 13:02, 9 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 Venal office without prejudice against a selective merge of relevant, sourced content. Owen× ☎ 20:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venality of offices[edit]

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

The article defines a concept that does not seem to consistently go by this name, the sale of offices is a concept, but this article does little to characterize it (and what it did do is the work of an LLM of dubious accuracy). Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and France. Curbon7 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not a rationale for deletion but I don’t think “venality of offices” is actually an English term, and seems to be a direct translation from French. “Sale of offices” would be fine as a title but as it happens we’ve had the article Venal office since 2006 so I suggest we just redirect to that. Mccapra (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Redirect to Venal office. I mean, ~~it's not the most plausible redirect but~~It's mentioned at the target so it's more plausible than I thought it should prevent future WP:CFORKS. Also oppose merging due to the WP:LLM concerns, not that there's anything to merge other than the claim that the practice occurred in Early Modern Europe as opposed to just Ancien Régime France. Nickps (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC) edited:23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nickps. hinnk (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with venal office. The term "venality of offices" is perfectly fine. The problem with the proposed target is that it is not global, hence merge. Srnec (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Spiderpig662 (talk) 19:05, 5 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!} 23:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OWL (Orphaned Wildlife) Rehabilitation Society[edit]

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

Article is created to probably promote the society and creator ~~may have~~has a conflict of interest (asked at their talk page) Edited: Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 20:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 19:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Wikipedia has numerous articles on wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and and preservation. Whole categories of such articles, in fact. Suggesting these articles, any of them, are created for promotion is uninformed. And saying the author has a vested interest in the subject is equally misguided. If you believe you have evidence of such, than link it, don't just toss accusations around. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diff for claim: Special:Diff/1232260375. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An existing published Wikipedia article on a similar wildlife rehab centre was used to create this article, along with following the Wikipedia guidelines & policies. I do apologize for missing the COI part. This article was not meant as a self-serving article. It is notable and would be a useful article for any researchers into birds of prey and the impact of climate change on raptors and their habitat. What can be done to make it meet the Wikipedia standards? KTourangeau (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KTourangeau, you can help by reducing some of the "promo" material in the article. The stuff that someone would go looking on the centre's website for, such as opening hours and events, should be removed, because of our principle of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but also because this information rapidly becomes stale. Imagine that no one whatsoever edits this article between now and 2034. What information should obviously still be there? What shouldn't? -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is very helpful, especially the part about no edits between now and 2034. I will try to reduce the "promo" material later today. KTourangeau (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that information about long-running events is usually fine to include ("the org has hosted an annual open house since YEAR, where visitors can meet the animals" or whatever), especially if there's been coverage about it in newspapers that goes beyond "this event is happening at this place", like we have for this org. But information on upcoming events or things like "n people visited the open house in 2023" are going to fail the 10-year-test. -- asilvering (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will keep all this in mind as I revise. KTourangeau (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been revised, reducing the "promo" material. Thank you for your suggestions. KTourangeau (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is sufficient, including on national news: [22], [23]. Even coverage that is "routine", eg this one that was published about their annual open house, includes extensive general reporting by staff reporters and is not sourced to press releases. -- asilvering (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. – Joe (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gustave Lefebvre[edit]

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

WP:COATRACK. This is not a biography of Gustave Lefebvre. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The coatrack has been replaced by an actual biography of Lefebvre. Though sourcing seems sparse, and we may well end up with little more than a stub, WP:GNG seems to have been met. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Africa, and Egypt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and France. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? Nomination is unclear. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep but replace content. I agree that the article in its nominated state was a WP:COATRACK. I have stubbed it back down to a single sentence with his birth and death dates and occupation (the state in which it was created) but added three published sources about his life. I think that's enough for WP:GNG, and WP:TNT would only have applied if there were no valid version to revert to, not true in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' following David's improvements. It's also worth noting that the article was created as a plain stub and the coatracky stuff was only added later. – Joe (talk) 06:06, 3 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 1923 St. Louis All-Stars season. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Meinhardt[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. This is a stub that I created when we presumed notability for those who played in the NFL. (Meinhardt appeared in 6 games as a lineman for St. Louis in 1923.) The presumption was revoked by community-wide consensus, and I have searched extensively for SIGCOV without success. (Note: There was another George Meinhardt football player/coach in St. Louis born c. 1911 who has more extensive coverage, but that's a different person.) A redirect to 1923 St. Louis All-Stars season may be appropriate as an alternative to deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Missouri. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1923 St. Louis All-Stars season: Not finding enough WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Teen Titans (TV series) characters#Red X. As a side note, "Delete per TNT" is an oxymoron. WP:TNT is an essay about an editorial approach to rewriting an article on a notable topic that belongs on WP. If you !vote "per TNT", you're !voting to keep and rewrite the article. Owen× ☎ 20:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red X[edit]

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

This page is a disaster. It's completely uncited, provides zero real-world context besides listing issues that the character appears in, and doesn't illustrate notability at all. Not to mention that the page doesn't even clarify that it's about a comic character, and the lead just presents the subject as if it's a real person. I don't know if this character is actually notable, but even if it is, this page seems unsalvageable to me except for a complete rewrite. WP:TNT. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing indicating why this might warrant an article. If the fictional character has no out of universe analysis then they clearly aren't notable. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Teen Titans (TV_series) characters#Red_X - The state of the article is so terrible at providing context that its hard to tell, but this actually about a character that appeared in the Teen Titans (TV series). They already have an appropriate section in the main character list for that series, so this should simply be redirected there. As this is a complete mess of unsourced, in-universe plot information, any kind of merging would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and semi-protect: This is an uncredited copypaste from Fandom by someone who either won't or can't hear that we don't need it, and therefore keeps re-creating it. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 21:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. Fandom content is freely licensed, but there's more than one site hosting the article and nothing much worth keeping, so probably best to delete the article and its history first. hinnk (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's free-with-attribution, right? So even if this were an article appropriate to Wikipedia, an uncredited copypaste would still not be okay. -- D'n'B-t -- 08:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncited and unverified. At best a WP:TNT scenario. Jontesta (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite or merge with List of DC Comics characters: R while rewriting in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. The unidentified second Rex X has crossed over into the mainstream comics. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can't just cite WP:PRESERVE as a rationale for Keeping or merging without addressing the very obvious problem with sourcing. Have you actually found any significant coverage in reliable sources that would actually justify a Keep or Merge argument? Rorshacma (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Popular Consciousness[edit]

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

The article does not meet the criteria of being notable. There are numerous trivial references to its leader, Yannis Lagos, but nothing about his presence on the political scene, his actions, his positions and his ideology. After all, the party did not really have autonomous action since it soon became part of an alliance.

The abundance of pieces is only due to the fact that its leader was a prominent neo-Nazi but in wikipedia Wikipedia:ORGSIG

In fact, it's not even active today, it's been dismantled which means there will be no future references that might make it notable. Wikipedia:NTEMP D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The party was connected to an MEP, a highly unusual case as he spent the majority of his tenure as an MEP in prison. This party emerged following the tumultuous events surrounding the ban of Golden Dawn. Deleting a well-sourced article that documents the continuation of Golden Dawn and its efforts to persist is illogical. It should remain on Wikipedia. Michalis1994 (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ORGSIG D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Michalis1994 (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the party holds or has held representation in the EU Parliament makes it notable. It also has plenty of sources also helping its notability, for if it wasn't notable, you would have so many sources talking about it. Helper201 (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For similar reasons as above. Vulpicula (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that this party managed to get someone elected to the EU Parliament shows it has some level of significance. Plus, all these sources wouldn't exist if it wasn't a noteworthy group. Wiping this information from Wikipedia seems unnecessary when it's clearly documented and relevant. Waqar💬 15:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Dear friends, you can't check the sources because you don't know Greek. Pleace, try with Google Translator, to verify if the sources mention the party.

https://www.cnn.gr/politiki/story/349403/vouli-perase-i-diataksi-gia-to-stop-sto-komma-kasidiari/amp nothing about the party

https://amp.dw.com/el/%CE%BF%CE%B9-%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AF-%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BD-%CE%BD%CE%B1-%CE%B5%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CF%81%CE%AD%CF%88%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BD-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%B7%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE-%CE%B2%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%AE/a-64461637 for Kasidiaris only

https://www.topontiki.gr/2019/11/05/neo-komma-apo-lago-keada-iliopoulo-me-tis-evlogies-tou-patros-plevri-video/ about Lagos

https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1160894/supporters-of-far-right-mep-scatter-flyers-outside-kathimerini/ about Lagos

https://www.illiberalism.org/the-golden-dawn-trials-on-appeal/ Currently, many convicted neo-Nazis have left GD and followed other far-right organizations such as ELASYN (Ethnikē Laikē Syneidēsē: Greek national conscience), a far-right fringe party led by Konstantinos Plevris and Giannis Lagos until 2020. that's all

https://www.illiberalism.org/mapping-the-greek-far-right-one-year-after-golden-dawns-conviction/ It was Lagos who launched ELASYN (Ethniki Laiki Sinidisi), the “National Popular Conscience” party, alongside Konstantinos Plevris, otherwise known as the patriarch of Greek neo-fascism. that's all

https://thewire.in/world/greeces-nazi-golden-dawn-has-finally-been-ruled-a-criminal-organisation nothing about the party

D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:25, 3 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.

User:CanonNi I can't understand why you closed the discussion and even without justifying your decision. You know very well that it doesn't matter how many users agree, but whether there are significant arguments to keep the page up. ... Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes.... Please, open it again. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1930 Providence Steam Roller season. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herm Young[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. This is a stub that I created when we presumed notability for those who played in the NFL. (Young appeared in 3 games as a backup player for Providence in 1930.) The presumption was revoked by community-wide consensus, and I have searched extensively for SIGCOV and the best I found was this piece announcing his selection as captain of his high school football team. A redirect to 1930 Providence Steam Roller season may be appropriate as an alternative to deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Florida, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1930 Providence Steam Roller season: Like the nom, I was unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources in order to meet the WP:GNG. The source in the nom statement wouldn't work for notability purposes per WP:YOUNGATH anyways, which excludes most local content. Let'srun (talk) 23:52, 4 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. The nomination, as well as some of the Delete !votes, relied on the complete absence of sources the article suffered from when nominated. Those participants had ample opportunity to come back and address the plethora of sources presented and added to the greatly-expanded article since then, but most chose not to, prompting me to discount their view. Of the views based on the current state of the article vis à vis WP:NUMBER, there is a rough consensus to keep the page. Owen× ☎ 17:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1234 (number)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a rather unremarkable number. Lacks notability. Fram (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom; other than "the digits are in order" there is nothing interesting about the number. Recently created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the additions are from OEIS and are of dubious importance. But it is "good enough"; I don't want to put in further effort assessing whether this should be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's trivial. Athel cb (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added some sourced properties, not all of which are "the digits are in order". The article is now significantly expanded from its nominated sub-stub version, which didn't even say that much. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I need more numbers in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is helpful also, I made this page because I need more numbers in Wikipedia, so don’t delete it. It is a good page. Highway Helper (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)striking comment by cu-confirmed sock. Technically this could be deleted as created in violation of a block or ban, but as others have now commented about keeping it I suppose we should hold off. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Enthusiastic editors are a great thing to have. However, before you create any more pages, you might want to carefully read WP:GNG, which talks about when a topic is sufficiently important to have its own page. PianoDan (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. PianoDan (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am adding more sourced properties as well. Radlrb (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evaluating this number by the relevant guideline, the big question is Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer? I think we can lump together all of its appearances in various lists made by concatenating numerals ("triangle of the gods", the $a(n)=10a(n-1)+n$ sequence, and the Yates-order thing). Then we've got the counting of independent vertex sets, which is in the OEIS as both "nice" and "hard". We could also include this along with that and maybe mention this as well. The "finite Sturmian words" sequence is also "nice", though what it's actually counting seems harder to explain... The rest of what's currently in the page can be summarized, I think, by saying, "1234 is also the answer to various partitioning problems, such as" and giving a few examples. Counting rooted trees of a fixed height and digits in Fermat numbers could also be included. Overall, I think this one is salvageable, somewhat to my surprise. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partitions are tricky, mainly because all small enough numbers will be some partition values of different integers in many ways, so at least two coinciding values in different enough ways (or similar too), makes pairs of integer partitions or more worthwhile to mention (here we have two for 44 and two for 24, for example). Else partition values obtained that are factors of each other is another order of interest, especially if the partitions are defined in similar ways... and so forth. Actual uses of select partitions become most notable, of course. We can remove some from here (like those in the note). Radlrb (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I think you are misinterpreting the guideline (it isn't the clearest in this regard). For a number to be considered notable, it needs to meet all three bullet points, not just one of them. Above, there are similar lists for "kinds" and "sequences" of numbers, and there it is explicitly noted that we need an "affirmative" answer to the questions, not just to one of them. You can also see in the "Disposition of examples" for the numbers, that the example meets all three questions and thus is notable. For 1234, so far only meeting question 1 has been demonstrated, positive answers to question 2 and 3 are missing, and this means that it doesn't meet the guideline and isn't notable. Fram (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said "the big question". Question 2 is the most subjective, and in this case is arguably met because the number in question is, well, "one two three four". It's the ATM PIN for people who don't care about their ATM PIN, and all that. The answer to question 3 is yes; 1234 appears on Friedman's webpage (I haven't checked the other two, but it doesn't have to appear in all of them). XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning also, this article as it currently stands also satisfies guidelines found at WikiProject Numbers (aside from maybe, finding a good cultural point referenced, or otherwise). Radlrb (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly non-notable by any reasonable interpretation of the idea. Any number of this magnitude is likely to crop up in dozens, if not hundreds, or thousands, of OEIS entries. A laundry list of such appearances does not an encyclopedic subject make. I'd go so far as to say that numbers above 100 (and I'm being really generous by cutting off at 100) are not notable unless they have some overriding cultural significance or for some other special reason. "1234" does not fit into this, and indeed, even after attempts to flesh out the article, all we have is a list of numerical trivia. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero sense, and that will never happen anyways. It's not just about OEIS, and guidelines are clear in what is required to be included here as an article. For example, take 1024, or a small number such as 144, and you'll get very important properties arising. Radlrb (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree with me, just as I disagree with you, but saying my reasoning makes "zero sense" makes zero sense. And I even said I'm open to exceptional cases, but this isn't one of them. And the guidelines on standalone notability for integers are, frankly, bullshit. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome you to make suggestions for better notability guidelines at the proper project pages, then. Note, that these have been "fleshed out" quite a bit. Radlrb (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a published source for the frequent pin code usage. I'm not a big fan of crufty number articles, but I think the grid independent set property, the cultural usage as a pin code, and the appearance of this number in recreational mathematics works such as Pickover's are enough for this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PIN referenced is not really about the integer 1234, as its a string of digits for a code, and people usually would not think of "one thousand, two hundred and thirty-four" when putting this pin down, more so "one two three four". But, it can go either way, so I think it's somewhat admissible (if that's all that we can find culturaly, or in society, so to speak, for this article so far). Radlrb (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article is now greatly expanded and much better sourced than it was when nominated. A (re-)assessment of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable and insufficient coverage. S-Aura (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comment. The relisting comment asked about source analysis. TL;DR -- there aren't any of any worth. The OEIS is fine for verifying basic facts (although it does have mistakes), but it's useless for trying to establish "notability" of a number, which is kind of a silly idea anyway. The Parker book is even more useless; it's a short offhand comment in which 1234 crops up, and it certainly doesn't go into any depth about the number; worse yet, it's just that it happens to be the first in a sequence which doesn't satisfy a particular property. Moreover, it's a base-10-specific property, which are always far less important anyway. And finally, as even Radlrb astutely pointed out, the PIN thing isn't about the number 1234, but merely the string of base-10 digits. The basic premise of GNG is "are there sources which discuss the topic in depth?", to which the answer is a pretty clear "no". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "the number 1234" and "the string of base-10 digits" is too fine a hair for me to split here. A property of a string of base-10 digits is a property of a base-10 representation of a number, and thus a property of that number. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
💯 Radlrb (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And our number articles are full of facts that are more about numerals as strings than arithmetic statements about integers. For example, 66 (number) includes Messier 66 and Route 66, cases in which the numbers are semi-arbitrary identifiers; there's no meaning in adding or multiplying highway numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that numbers-as-semi-arbitrary-identifiers belong on disambiguation pages, not on pages about numbers-as-numbers. But mathematical or cultural properties of strings of base-10 digits can stay on the number pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. There are three nice sequences listed, and a cultural point that passes - limit I believe is at a four-digit code where people could use spelled out numbers rather than digit by digit (one, twelve, one hundred and twenty three, one thousand two hundred and thirty four; maybe not twelve-thousand three hundred and forty five, as the series becomes longer and wordier). These points collectively suffice for notability guidelines for number articles; in-depth coverage is not a requirement (though depth is given for various points). Radlrb (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is king. If there aren't sources discussing a topic in depth, it's not notable. Notability isn't some checklist where something gets to tick off some boxes and it automatically gets an article. It's always case-by-case, and the tortured reasoning being employed here to try to save this one is ludicrous. You yourself even admitted that a PIN being "1234" is about the digits, and not the number represented by that string of digits. And even still, the obvious followup question is "so !@#$ing what?" Because "1234" is a common PIN it gets a Wikipedia article? Really? Has the world gone insane? I'm really in disbelief over the lunacy here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it depends on how to dictate in-depth coverage (not source-wise I mean, OEIS and the books sourced are clearly notable, as with their respective authors). Expansion to the mention in binary is warranted, and I haven't gotten to that yet. While most number articles do need some work in this regard, a simple use or noteworthy point (i.e., 1234 is the first to not be divisible by the last digit, in its series) can have deeper meaning and substantiate the original point (in this example, four adjoining properties are coupled). The vertex sets point is also substantiated by a note. The partitions examples are important in giving mathematical value to the number 24, for example, or 44; the former is particularly a notable number, so value is given there and therefore is a worthwhile mention. The cultural example is perfectly fine, and I grew into appreciating it more after contemplating it further. Radlrb (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be the only person who immidiately thought of this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number is notable for being one of the most-common passwords, but I don't think it warrants an entire article about it 1234, SAD! and other great political passwords, New defence secretary’s YouTube account was hacked because password was as easy as ‘1234’, The damage done by Russia’s hack of Germany’s defence ministry, Archive of historic BT 'email' hack preserved. Svampesky (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the nominator has not given a rationale, so I will say here that WP:ILIKEIT. I really don't see what damage this does, to anyone, besides people who become angry re: the existence of a page on a website that they don't have to read. Also, per above, &c &c jp×g 🗯️ 11:14, 8 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. On balance, the arguments on the Keep side carry more P&G weight, while the Delete arguments are largely around the content rather than the notability of the topic, suggesting the page can be fixed editorially. Renomination allowed in two months, in case the content issues aren't resolved. Owen× ☎ 16:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief executive officers[edit]

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

Ephemeral list with unclear criteria for inclusion. Category:Chief executives by nationality includes more then 12,000 notable subjects, which could potentially all end up in this list. Broc (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Lists of people, and Lists. Broc (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:NOTDIRECTORY also delete subcategories on a separate AFD deletion. Why do we need this list, or any of the other similar lists? There's a whole bunch of this stuff we could delete. See Category:Lists of businesspeople - why do we need to know how many Jewish persons are in a given area of corporations? And why do we need to know their specific names and birth-death dates? It just goes on and on, with probably nobody updating these lists. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66 I've noticed those other lists such as List of Jewish American businesspeople in finance which do not seem to fulfill WP:NLIST. However, they can't be grouped with this nomination, as my concerns for this list are more about WP:SALAT (selection criterion is too broad) and WP:LISTOUTCOMES (ephemeral listings are usually deleted). Broc (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Just mentioning in case anyone else wants to create an AFD for any of those . — Maile (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list appears to only have current CEOs of notable companies, even though it's not clearly stated; skimming the categories, I see a lot of former CEOs and executives of non-notable companies or other types of entities. This list could probably be reorganized to be sorted by country or further limited to, say, Fortune 500 or equivalent companies, as well as removing the few CEOs listed who don't have their own articles either, but it serves a valid navigational purpose. These categories have a lot of people who aren't corporate executives or are notable for other things, so it's not very useful for navigation. I'd further note that the item on the Common Outcomes page was added in 2011 as "Ephemeral listings of current personnel", which is often seen as non-notable people; this is by no means a precedent that applies here and does not ban the concept of things being up to date. Reywas92^Talk 15:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the list gets too long, it can split out by nationality. This is far more useful than a category that only list their names, this showing what company they are in, what years they held this title, and how they got their position. Perfect valid navigational list. Dream Focus 16:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to understand the selection criteria for what constitutes a "notable company" or how a "position corresponding" to CEO is defined. As such, this is a WP:NLIST violation. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the CEO and the company both have their own Wikipedia articles, then they are notable. If its notable enough for a category, you can make a far more useful navigational list out of it. Dream Focus 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, is a random list with no clear boundaries. What defines a notable company? There must be thousands of CEOs, if not more, this article lists a few hundred. Would be more useful if there were defined boundaries, e.g. of a FTSE 100 or Nasdaq 100. Heronrhyne (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Heronrhyne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dream Focus 04:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This list doesn't seem to be simply a directory, as it provides info about each entry. As for the consern of the list becoming to large, it could always be split into different articles, say by country, if we come upon that bridge. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 00:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list, passes WP:NLIST. Of course it is incomplete and not always up to date, as inevitably with any such list. Edwardx (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is outdated, yes, but it's a useful navigational list that doesn't overlap with any of our categories. I disagree that the selection criteria is too broad. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 8 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. There seems to be some consensus to rename the article, but that is outside the scope of AfD. Owen× ☎ 16:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M-T pronouns[edit]

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

Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:

"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."

Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field — Iadmc ♫^talk 10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.

As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.

Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.

I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.

An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)

What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note — kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "teach the controversy" energy.

@Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.

Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:

"Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia"[24] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
"Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"[25] by Juha Janhunen

Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?

I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took your suggestion and merged in the N-M stuff and moved the article to M–T and N–M pronoun patterns. I haven't had a chance yet to incorporate your sources, and this week's going to be rather busy, but it's on my to-do list. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would a redirect to Nostratic languages be possible here? This seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a good idea. The topic is notable outside of the Nostraticist bubble. The author that has most contributed to our understanding of the topic, Johanna Nichols, does not endorse long-range speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably clean up. Gbooks turned up this sound-looking source. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brief mention simply referring back to Nichols again; there's not the sort of in-depth analysis that you'd expect for a notable topic...or any analysis for that matter. The OR/SYNTH here is strewn so inextricably throughout the article, and the topic so niche, contributed by a single author, that cleanup seems exceedingly improbable. At the very least, WP:TNT applies here if anyone thinks that they can demonstrate notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inextricable? Don't turn subjective unwillingness to extract the obvious bits of OR/SYNTH into an intrinsic property of the text. WP:TNT is not an excuse for laziness. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move articles while their AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning delete, but I think kwami is right that there can be articles about arguments used for dubious language families, and I think calling the article "original research" is overly critical. However, the WALS map is not clearly about an argument used for certain proposed families, but about the distribution of sounds in certain pronouns - whether or not these have been used as arguments for Nostratic/Altaic/Indo-Uralic or whatever - at least in my reading. I would like to see more sources that are specifically about the pattern, otherwise it seems to get undue weight by having an article. The topic could instead be covered under the name of "(Personal) pronouns in Nostratic/etc", which would make sense under a very different structure (so not sure a move would be useful, or?), and maybe even better to start it as a subsection in the relevant proposed family's article. This would probably better reflect the context that the pattern is discussed in, in the sources. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to "phonetic patterns in pronouns" or something like that. The best of multiple bad options. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be recognizable. I think "M–T and N–M pronoun patterns" as suggested above would be best. Those are the two patterns that are notable globally. We can still have an 'other patterns' section. — kwami (talk) 07:01, 5 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!} 07:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere girls[edit]

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

article is written to legitimize this term, making it seem its use is widespread. there isn't even a chinese wikipedia article about this term. search up "沒女", most results (and most sources in the article) are about the tv show 没女大翻身. ltb d l (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, China, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: Could the nominator clarify what is the rationale for deletion? The Wen Wei Po, U Beauty, and the South China Morning Post sources currently in the article may not be the best, but already demonstrate that the term exists and is notable enough to pass GNG. In addition to these sources, a simple search has provided me with numerous other sources, including some Chinese sources that document the origin of this term (see Economic Daily[26] and The Sun[27]), how it spread to and became popular in Hong Kong (see Hong Kong Economic Journal[28], Wen Wei Po[29], and She.com [zh][30]), as well as the subsequent social influence and some recurring usages after it gained popularity (see BBC [31], Ming Pao[32], HK01 [33], and Oriental Daily News[34]). I have not yet looked for academic sources, but I have already come across two academic journal articles that cover this term when I was searching for media sources ([35] and [36]), so I do not believe academic sources would be difficult to locate either. :The fact that it does not currently have a respective article on the zhwiki means nothing, and it is clearly an argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Most of the sources mention the TV show Nowhere Girl is understandable, because that show popularised the term. There are many other instances of the term being used, such as the drama series The No No Girl (全職沒女), the film Love Detective [zh] (沒女神探), and a non-fiction book Mei nü Yao Fan Shen (沒女要翻身) written by Queenie Chan [zh][37], where the English translation of the term may differ. So the claim that the term is only used in one particular TV show is false as well. Could the nominator please elaborate a bit more on the specific rationale being used for deletion? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since about a week has passed but the nominator did not further elaborate on the deletion rationale, the current nomination statement is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST instead of notability guidelines, and I think it should be considered Speedy Keep per WP:CSK#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 07:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent research by Prince of Erebor (talk · contribs), who has definitively shown that the topic passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per clear pass on WP:LASTING which is usually the death of flash-in-the-pan neologisms - the originating influence is from 2001, and I am satisfied that the articles posted by Prince of Erebor are sufficiently far apart that this is a notable concept. BrigadierG (talk) 00:00, 3 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!} 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum engineering data rate[edit]

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

Could not find sourcing for this concept or term. The only use I could find of this metric that predates the article was: "Initial Cassini propulsion system in-flight characterization" (2002) [38] — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find reliable sources discussing this term. Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, I was also unsuccessful when looking for evidence of WP:V BrigadierG (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Struggling to find independent sources to support the information here. Might be best to remove it for now. Waqar💬 15:17, 3 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× ☎ 16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labingi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG seems like an list disambiguation. Both articles link to each other in the lead. Could possible be redirected to Westron language? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be real, but so trivial as to not merit a mention in Bilbo's article as it stands now. Is there more context to these supposed names that would fill out a stub, or another article that explains the context here? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly real and readily sourced, and a reminder that we should certainly make more of Westron names, in fact the whole language, throughout the WikiProject. The prime concern across the project has been notability, given that there was a large legacy of what seemed to be fan-created articles with (at best) primary sourcing. Now that that's been fixed, looking at the development of names and of characters, all the legendarium side of things, is an obvious next step: i.e. we should add the "Labingi" element to many articles. I'd hope it'd go without saying that you can't decide notability by looking at Wikipedia's gaps, but perhaps that's worth repeating here. Tolkien devoted enormous effort to the names in multiple languages, complete with Pseudotranslation from Westron to English; scholars are starting to catch up with these legendarium (Silmarillion without italics) aspects, so there is potentially large scope for article improvement in this direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Judging from the description in Template:Surname and many examples I see, it seems that name pages do work differently with regard to notability requirements as compared to "normal" articles. They seem to be more or less a special type of disambiguation page. Is that correct? Daranios (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, they are basically navigation lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The thing is this is a fictional name with only two uses. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  When things need disambiguating, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 20. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Except in this instance disambiguation isn’t needed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a name page this does not need to fullfill WP:GNG as discussed above. I think a sentence adding the Westron version of the name to Bilbo Baggins in the way it does appear at Frodo Baggins#Concept and creation is warranted, and can be verfied by both primary and secondary sources. (I only now have seen that the name appears in the very beginning at Bilbo Baggins, so I am not sure if more is necessary for the name as such. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)) Partially answering Jclemens' question, I did see small pieces of further context, which are probably best included in other articles: The Hobbit Encyclopedia, p. 201, states how we see that the connection between Baggins and Bag End is deliberate, because it also appears in the Westron names. Probably best suited for the Bag End article. This snippet view from Myth Print magazine has criticism on the introduction of the Westron names, referring to Maura Labingi, as they can detract from appreciating the names commonly appearing in the books, like Frodo Baggins. Probably best suited for the Pseudotranslation in The Lord of the Rings article. This article has a bit of commentary on how the names Baggins and Labingi, which both can be related to (to) bag/(to) pocket, are suitable for the character of Bilbo (and Frodo as his heir), i.e. suited for the Bilbo Baggins article. I don't quite get what kind of publication that is, though. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both of the two things disambiguated are not common names for the characters by a longshot. Per WP:NAMELIST, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. I assume this also applies to fictional characters, making this DAB page blatantly violate policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think WP:NAMELIST refers to a very different case than ours here, with their example of Lincoln (disambiguation): If there is a term with a number of different meanings, which includes both persons' names and other things, then one should only include very prominent examples (like Abraham Lincoln) in the main disambiguation page, while other persons' names should be spun out into a page like Lincoln (name). Here, we only have names of (fictional) persons. Secondly, the guideline says why it exists in the first place: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long. That is very much not a problem here. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is presented as a name list, and uses the templates that are intended for real life people. So I have no choice but to judge it as one - if I don't, it has even less of a claim for existence due to violating WP:PTM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see this also as a name list. WP:NAMELIST, despite its title, does not deal with how to construct name lists, but how to deal with regular disambiguation pages which also contain names, and the relationship between regular disambiguation pages and name lists. The part you have quoted therefore does not apply to our name list here, as is directly present in that part: ...should be listed at the disambiguation page.... So no violation of that guideline here. Daranios (talk) 09:57, 20 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!} 02:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are literally father and son. They are the only two people listed. We don't need a surname list when everyone on the list is related. We do not have Obama (name) or Biden (name) for the same reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: We don't need a surname list when everyone on the list is related. Why not? Is that fixed as a consensus somewhere? Obama and Biden redirect to Barack Obama and Joe Biden respectively, because one bearer of the name is clearly much more well known than the others (WP:PRIMARYTARGET). Which is not the case for our two characters here. But we do have Obama (surname) and Biden (surname), which are slightly different cases, but certainly do not lend support for deletion here. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, did not know those existed, but they have unrelated people so my point still stands. Surname lists are typically used for navigational purposes, but when the only two notable people with the surname are father and son, the articles link to each other anyway in their respective leads and the list serves no purpose. It also does not help that this is not the common name for either character. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is at best footnote territory for the fictional characters, without relevance for the plot nor the real world. Leave this info for fan wikis. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per QuicoleJR. Baggins is the more common name and even that is a simple redirect. No disambiguation page necessary as the two articles are closely linked. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angara Airlines Flight 200[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of sources constitute those of primary sources with a lack of reliable secondary sources. The event does not have in-depth coverage with a failure of continued coverage with lasting effects having not been demonstrated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not the best article, but there are clearly sources on the Russian language article showing sustained coverage of this fatality-causing incident. SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The russian article on Angara Airlines Flight 200 has been nominated for deletion since 2021 with those three sources talking about the heroic actions of the flight attendant. I don't mind including this in the article but there needs to be more coverage talking about the accident for a sustained amount of time for the accident to be considered notable.

"of this fatality-causing incident."

Per the event criteria, criterion #4, _{Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.}

There doesn't seem to be much that would give this accident, whilst tragic, additional enduring significance. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with you. Whether something is notable on another Wikipedia does not matter. We usually keep articles on fatal commercial plane crashes, and those articles in the Russian article discuss the flight attendant being honoured by Putin, so a big deal, and retrospectives in Russian such as [39]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has deleted fatal aviation accidents involving commercial airliners. "Usually keep" doesn't always mean "keep" unless something gives the accident enduring significance.

You mention the flight attendant but what makes the accident notable in itself? The article fails multiple guidelines for a stand-alone article. In my opinion, there isn't enough that gives this accident enduring significance that would warrant a standalone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The death of the flight crew in normal passenger aviation combined with the lasting coverage of the event through the honouring of the flight attendant clearly gets it over the bar. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources covering the flight attendant's honouring are primary sources since they reported on the news when it came out without actually doing much analysis. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles on the flight attendant are clearly secondary, not "breaking news." See [40], that is clearly not a primary source. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's needs to be a consistent pattern of secondary sources. One secondary source does not make the rest secondary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of secondary sources available for this incident. I don't really know why you're trying to discredit this on that ground. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. gidonb (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The community has a longstanding consensus that the crash of a regularly-scheduled commercial passenger flight resulting in a total hull loss, fatalities, significant impacts aside from the crash of the aircraft, and/or long-term regulatory changes meets notability standards. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) _{Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by the following reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

Maybe, but I'm busy. I don't expect to be able to spend much more than casual morning coffee drive-by's until mid-July at best. You could try searching youself? It shouldn't be hard to find. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I did and it turned up nothing, so unless you're referring to the essay of WP:AIRCRASH, I don't see what longstanding consensus you're talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of, nor have I been able to find, any such consensus either. WP:AIRCRASH is merely intended to help assess whether an event is worthy of mention in lists of accidents and incidents, and sure enough this accident is quite rightly listed on the airline, aircraft and airport articles. Just possibly, we could redirect to one of those rather than deleting it outright. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But could you link an established consensus? Community "consensus" doesn't override policy and guidelines which the article/event fails and does not excuse it from not meeting multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's consistently brought up shows that it demonstrates at least some sort of "consensus" about how these articles are reviewed at AfD. In this instance, it was a passenger flight which resulted in fatalities, and received sustained coverage "after the event," which usually results in a keep. I don't know why this would be different. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been brought up but it has never been established as an actual consensus.

Some articles, such as Lao Aviation FLight 703, Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60, Miami Air Flight 293, Ozark Air Lines Flight 982 were nominated shortly after the creation of their article. Some articles such as Ural Airlines Flight 178, Air Astana Flight 1388 and VASP Flight 210, in hindsight, were very serious accidents due to their unique circumstances.

Notability isn't immediately inherited just because the event involved a commercial airliner. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying notability is inherited because of that, but look at the fresh deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 - it lists all the reasons when we generally characterise coverage of an aviation incident as lasting. SportingFlyer T·C 21:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) _{Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by a previous reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH is not policy and it specifically recommends not being used at AfD. That being said, it absolutely does reflect how we tend to assess these sorts of articles for deletion, and is referenced over 800 times. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is being referenced over 800 times incorrectly. As you said, WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy, so actual policy based arguments take precedence over essays. I don't see much evidence of this essay being thoroughly supported by the community. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not being used incorrectly. It's been mentioned at several AfDs recently and is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Senegal Flight 301 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RA-78804 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 SkyJet Elite Astra crash and you yourself used it in March here to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 35. You can't have it both ways... SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I used it incorrectly. I was told on another AfD to not use it as it was an essay which I have not since. As for the other Afds linked, just because they're used doesn't mean it's being correctly used. I can't speak for the others but let me remind you that consensus was quite clear cut in the others so arguments mentioning WP:AIRCRASH probably were not given too much value. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in all those that you linked except for UA35, it was stated the use of WP:AIRCRASH was flawed and should not be used. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's an "and/or" in that sentence. So one or more of the items in that list. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question still stays. [...] and long-term regulatory changes / [...] or long-term regulatory changes, it doesn't matter since it's being mentioned. Why mention it in the first place if it's being discarded and not going to be elaborated on? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Airplane crashes do not have inherent notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the decision is not to keep, it should be redirected to Angara Airlines#Accidents rather than being deleted, noting that this article is linked not just from the couple of navbox templates, but also from a few pages. It's reasonable for at least some of those appearances to remain, so interlinking is a net benefit. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by sources indicated above. gidonb (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you mean? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Typo. Fixed in the source. gidonb (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still, which sources are you referring to? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bludgeoning this debate. It is annoying when nominators try arguing with each single editor who "dares" to disagree with their opinion. Moderators had their say in the intro. This intro wasn't unreasonably written, yet that doesn't guarantee that each editor will agree with you. We all do our research and bring our knowledge of policies, guidelines, subject matter, and other experience to a debate. gidonb (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I found some evidence of WP:LASTING from mention 4 years later in The Sunday Times -https://archive.is/OZXqk. I believe this crash may be plausible (barely) notable as part of a wider phenomenon cited by the times of Antonov An-24 airplanes being disproportionately involved in fatal accidents. BrigadierG (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about lasting effects or lasting coverage? From what I can tell, this is more of a brief mention, part of a wider range of An-24 accidents, since this was the first An-24 accident since Angara Airlines Flight 200. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to respond to everyone who disagrees with your nomination? SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 3 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× ☎ 16:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Epic Games Store giveaways[edit]

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

Fails NOTCATALOG. A similar page listing these was deleted in 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free Epic Games Store games. Info about the free giveaways can be kept at the main EGS page Masem (t) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the previous nom, same reason; WP:NOTPROMO. This would be like us listing Black Friday deals from KMart for every year; it's pointless to the regular reader and none of the deals apply any longer, and this shouldn't even be listed in the main article. Nate • (chatter) 16:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment last time - it's about as literal of a WP:NOTCATALOGUE violation as it can get. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there needs to be a stated reason why listing giveaways is encyclopedic. The data is interesting but more within the purview of a different Wiki project or site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Listing past giveaways is like collecting dust bunnies. It's not relevant and just clutters the page. Regular readers wouldn't even find outdated deals helpful, and it seems like a better fit for a different website. Waqar💬 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:INDISCRIMINATE ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of giveaways doesn't seem fit for Wikipedia as it doesn't look encyclopedic JuniperChill (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTADVERT. MK at your service. 03:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(To be clear, I meant info about the free giveaway program can be merged if that info is not already present at EGS, since I know some of the same info is already there; and not about merging the list of free games). — Masem (t) 04:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable standalone list. The 2019 deletion was later reviewed and restored.
WP:NOTCATALOG links to WP:LISTCRITERIA that insists that the selection criteria must be supported by reliable sources, otherwise it's not encyclopedic. There are three reliable per WP:VG/S sources ([41][42][43]) that are or were maitaining the list with the same selection criteria, and one situational per VG/S source ([44]) that maintains somewhat simliiar list. That shows encyclopedic merit and makes NOTCATALOG not applicable here. The only reason we don't list KMart Black Fridays is because there are no reliable sources listing them. That's also the reason why the similiar list was deleted in 2019, there were no third-party sources back then.
I also fail to see how WP:NOTPROMO is applicable here since the article is already written in objective and unbiased style and only uses third-party reliable sources.
The "pointless for the regular reader" argument is not valid (WP:USELESS). A particle for world to form (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It was restored to draftspace but that doesn't mean it was considered appropriate for mainspace. — Masem (t) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  ...but then this draft was submitted and later accepted as appropriate for mainspace. Admin who initially deleted the list in 2019 found my arguments against NOTCATALOGUE "pretty uncontrovercial", and the users who reviewed draft submissions were eventually convinced, too.
  (honestly the amount of bureaucracy in enwiki is overwhelming. I'm fine with both deleting and keeping the article, but I'd like to be able to know whether found reliable sources are enough for notability after just one discussion, and preferably before I've spend entire day writing an article. It's literally the third time I'm debating the same arguments) A particle for world to form (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Just because it went through an Articles for Creation process doesn't mean it has wide consensus to be in mainspace.
  Yes, there are a few RSes that do track this, that doesn't mean it is necessarily avoiding NOTCATALOG. As others have said above and in the previous AFD, these were still one time giveaways, it helps little for the general reader to know this information. That we can point to reliable RSes as external links in the main EGS article should be sufficient for that information. — Masem (t) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  > it is necessarily avoiding NOTCATALOG
  What part of NOTCATALOG is broken exactly?
  There's at least one application for this list for general reader: determining whether the current giveaway is brand new, or was this game already given away before. Ruwiki article's viewership peaks at every new giveaway, and it becames one of the most viewed article sitewise during holiday season (with daily giveaways). E. g. in December 2023 ru:Список игр, розданных в Epic Games Store was 454th most viewed article in Russian Wikipedia (of more than 1.8 mil articles), with over 60% of its monthly views occured in December 21st onwards. So I strongly disagree that this article is helpless. Although, once again, arguments of both mine and yours are not valid (WP:USEFUL/WP:USELESS). A particle for world to form (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Which is why NOTCATALOG still applies. We don't list giveaways/free offers from other storefronts like Steam, GOG, or even the Xbox or PlayStation store. Keeping in mind that WP:NOTCATALOG's six points are not meant to be fully inclusive of what is considered, this list is somewhere a mix of #5 (electronic program guides) and #6 (resource for doing business). When a game was available for free is effectively a price guide. Why stop there and include when games went on sale? I know there are sites that track sales from multiple PC storefronts, but just because they exist is not a reason to have a list of them here. Masem (t) 20:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Why are we even considering other storefronts, isn't this WP:OTHER? Wikipedia is solely based on reliable sources. We don't list offers from other storefronts because there are no third-party reliable sources doing the same listing. That's also the reason we don't track sales, as we aren't considering unofficial databases reliable (and also because this is too much data to fit in one article).
  Why there aren't reliable sources for other storefronts? Probably because Epic Games chose a pretty novel marketing strategy, no other storefront ever made persistent perennial giveaway chain to atract new users. Also because Steam giveaways are being organized by individual publishers, not Steam itself, so it's weird to put them in a common list. But neither of this is our concern; the availability of the sources is.
  NOTCATALOG #6 only forbids product information "unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention". And I don't see how this list is en electronic program guide. A particle for world to form (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @A particle for world to form I second @Masem's statement. I personally believed that article was ready for mainspace, but that does not mean that there is consensus. I was the sole reviewer of that draft. When you submit a draft to AfC, it gets reviewed by a reviewer, not all of them.
  
  I will further review policies, and formulate a decision soon about this discussion. OnlyNano^talk 22:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (I AM THE AFC REVIEWER OF THIS ARTICLE)
I personally believe this person has no conflict of interest, and it just doesn't feel promotional at all. Epic Games giveaways make news, such as The Verge ([45]), where single promotions are published, and of course, the linked PC Gamer articles, which just keep up-to-date info. This data is helpful, but I couldn't see myself (if they could print this much) opening up an encyclopedia, and seeing a list of Epic Games promotions.
Therefore, I do not agree with deleting this article due to reasons such as WP:NOTCATALOG, and instead deleting it under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't see it being something encyclopedic. OnlyNano^talk 22:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTIINFO/WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Promotional article for Epic Games. Ajf773 (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the correct policy to apply here. Charcoal feather (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Epic Games Store giveaways EGS strategy of giveaways is a notable phenomena and articles in reputable outlets have been written about it eg https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/12/22380895/epic-games-store-afford-give-away-17-5-billion-free-games https://www.ign.com/articles/epic-is-losing-hundreds-of-millions-as-it-battles-to-gain-market-share-from-steam https://www.pcgamer.com/tim-sweeney-says-epic-games-store-giveaways-help-boost-sales-on-other-platforms/ and https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/pc-gaming/epic-store-unprofitable-but-keeps-giving-away-free-games. Within that article it makes sense to have a list of games with sources. But it should not be titled as a list and should not function simply as a list which would indeed be WP:DIRECTORY User:J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main Epic Games Store does discuss in depth the free giveaway program, and more about losses are at the Epic Games v. Apple page, but that does justify the need to have the full list ofb100+ games given away, or at least this us something easily put in via an external link to an RS that is tracking them Masem (t) 19:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There would be too much of a WP:OVERLAP with the main Epic Games Store article for this to be a viable option. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I find the above argument a good alternative to deletion for this article. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 8 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!} 16:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Show Tickets[edit]

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

This is an article created by recently banned User:Nytix, who appears to have a clear conflict of interest. The article has been around for 15 years, and has a lot of stuff in it, but without accumulating any meaningful reliable and verifiable in-depth sourcing about the company; nor are there any meaningful links from other Wikipedia articles showing that the company is integrated into the encyclopedia. The businesses website appears to be entirely oriented towards selling tickets.

My WP:BEFORE search on Google didn't turn up anything meaningful to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and New York. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI and PROMO, this is also a seriously out-of-date article (1iota handles most TV show ticketing these days, online, and networks generally don't cooperate with independent resellers because it's 2024 and they can manage tickets online). Nate • (chatter) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we dont handle TV show tickets anymore - but we ran TV show ticketing for many shows for years in the early days - where are we saying that we do TV show tickets now? 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you arent really reading the wikipedia page - just glancing at it. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do TV shows anymore - we are 100% focused on Broadway show marketing - I would edit the wikipedia page to make it even clearer, but you have locked our account. On https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Monkeypox &lang=en&q=New_York_Show_Tickets we do say however state, "Today, NYTIX sells Broadway show tickets and provides discount offers to Broadway shows through an online information guides (accessible through their website) that explain how to get discounted tickets to Broadway shows"

I am not sure how that is stating we do TV show ticketing. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, Advertising, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We now cover Broadway shows in New York City and our news stories have nothing to do with selling tickets https://www.nytix.com/news 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it is an incorrect statement to say that

"The businesses website appears to be entirely oriented towards selling tickets" 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also - the statement that there is no "meaningful reliable and verifiable in-depth sourcing about the company" is incorrect - we attempted to add the DUNS link, but editors removed it. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems whenever we attempt to include a reference or link - its gets blocked by editors. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this page is not acceptable, but another similar organization is acceptable - we fashioned our page on theirs as we imagined that was the correct method - their page is https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Monkeypox &lang=en&q=TodayTix

We attempted to add a reference from NBC that you deleted - I don't understand why:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/the-scene/broadway-cheap-how-to-score-discount-tickets-to-a-show/3684562/

Please advise. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As that and many other references have not been allowed to be added to this page. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We were banned because we tried to update the content - not much of reason to get banned - it was accurate content 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly I see tons of mentions on Wikipedia about NYTIX over the years at:

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Monkeypox &lang=en&q=Special:Search?go=Go&search=nytix&ns0=1

Why is no one else seeing that? I am very confused. 24.46.132.52 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Break from self-conversation[edit]

Comment You're not supposed to edit your own articles because that's a clear conflict of interest, and Nytix, you are not allowed to evade a block with an IP. And the WNBC piece is a clear advertorial piece, not a news story. Nate • (chatter) 16:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the NBC article that you mentioned, which does verify one of the statements in this Wikipedia article. We cannot cite Wikipedia articles, or any other crowd-sourced websites. If you have other mainstream news or feature articles about NYTIX, please cite them here, and I'll help you by reviewing them, and, if appropriate, adding them to the article. Try to keep calm, and do not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – most mentions of the company are limited to passing mentions in travel guides; these do not count as significant coverage when determining notability (either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP). Something like the NBC article also does not count because it is using the company's articles as a source, not discussing the company itself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising and promotion and I am unable to locate any sources that show this company meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP: N. My source analysis agrees with that of with RunningTiger123. The IP is a sockpuppet who's already violated at least three Wikipedia guidelines. My willingness to assume good faith drops dramatically when they accuse people of not reading the Wikipedia page after being told very nicely to stop their paid editing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:40, 8 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 It Won't Be Soon Before Long. ✗plicit 14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Lasts Forever (Maroon 5 song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. This had been redirected but the redirect was reversed by an IP, who I imagine is the banned editor BoxxyBoy who was very keen to keep this article before. This song spent a single week in the lower reaches of the Billboard Bubbling Under chart, so hardly a major hit. Of the six sources used in the Background section, only one of them actually mentions this song, and it's just a passing mention that it uses the same chorus that Adam Levine wrote for Kanye West's "Heard 'Em Say" – all the other sources are about that track, not this one, and don't give this song WP:INHERITED notability. So we have three one-line pieces of information: (1) it was a very minor hit on the Bubbling Under chart; (2) Levine appropriated his own chorus from a previous song; (3) it briefly featured in the background of two TV shows (both of which use bad sources). All of this information is already in the article for It Won't Be Soon Before Long... we don't need a separate poorly-sourced article to repeat these small pieces of information. Richard3120 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per nom. I agree with the breakdown, and can't see a path to satisfying WP:NSONGS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom A #123 song (or 122, whatever, that chart is a pain to begin with) being used as background in a couple of works and with a collaboration with a singer you'd think won't be collaborated with anytime soon isn't N in any way. Nate • (chatter) 16:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of highest-grossing South Indian films#Highest-grossing films by year. There's a clear consensus against keeping the articles in place, but no convincing arguments to having the page histories deleted, making this a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing South Indian films of 2024[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing South Indian films of 2024

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

There is an article List of Indian films of 2024 which covers entire Indian films box office and release dates, so having the article just for the sake of box office of every year is not needed. — Jayanthkumar123 (talk; contributions) 14:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they follow the same pattern similar to this article. Having a year-wise article just for the sake of box office collections, which merely has 10 entries is not necessary. Also, there are year-wise articles covering the entire Indian films and language-wise which has both release dates and box-office data.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film — Jayanthkumar123 (talk; contributions) 14:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be like having an article for List of highest-grossing films in Wyoming (2024); pointless and certainly not a normal classing list article. Nate • (chatter) 16:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...with all due respect, not exactly... the population of Wyoming is roughly half a million, South India would be something like 250 million people....not to mention the fact that South India is an extremely relevant region in the geography of the film industry, Wyoming, not so much. But I understand that's not the point.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was making an example of breaking out box office by subnational regions, not comparing population at all. Box office figures are never generally broken out by state, province or region for the general public. Nate • (chatter) 16:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to each to the respective List of Indian films of (the respective year); a section can be created there; or not, depending on what other users think. Or redirect all and merge into Cinema of South India#Characteristics and popularity, a section that lacks material, examples and sources. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC) (I forgot to say that, because this is sourced, I am not opposed to Keep this, if other users accept the idea that it meets WP:LISTSPLIT, for example.[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain, these articles may just mention few of the films that is just in South Indian territories, but it can be still used as the list for the selective fields to mention the highest grossing box office list of South India. I believe it can be better if we merge the lists of Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada and Tulu films of each year to this article.
By Piruty Pipaty (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I was of the same doubt regarding all of these articles. Not sure why Tulu was mentioned above but its box office impact is essentially nil. DareshMohan (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL. Per nom and fails WP:NLIST. This is also WP:CFORK. No need to distinguish between South Indian films and Indian films when they are all the same. Pages like List of Indian films of 2024 already exist. RangersRus (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by South Indian films and Indian films being all the same? Indian films include South Indian films, but they are not the same. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it is all Indian. We do not need South Indian or North Indian or west Indian or East Indian titles. Indian should include all. RangersRus (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but the South Indian Cinema includes more languages and also has lot of films with high box office. And also if you would say like that, what is the need of List of highest-grossing South Indian films? Will you discuss to delete that too?
By Piruty Pipaty (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Detailing box office by state, region or province is simply not of note to the average film viewer and is usually something for a specialist publication to detail (the type you have to subscribe to for a high fee like Photoshop and whose figures are not allowed to disclose as part of your subscription terms of service). Even in India, who have folks that make the most out there American box office stan seem placid, this simply is detail that's ripped out under criteria that isn't known to us or as well-done as the trades can do. None of these articles list the criteria they have outside whatever spin the sources detail and no reader is going to read every story to understand these charts. Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment to my !vote: List of highest-grossing South Indian films is another possible target in case a redirect is chosen.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same article that in its lede disclaims However, there is no official tracking of figures and sources publishing data are frequently pressured to increase their estimates.. Yes, let's totally delete this series of articles with questionable sourcing to redirect them all to another article with the exact same issues. The only 'targeting' that should be done for that page is also being taken to AfD. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't trust what is said in the article but, to back your assertion, you quote what the article says about what is said in the article:D. Afds are not for cleanup. Is that page acceptable according to guidelines about lists? Yes. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of highest-grossing South Indian films#Highest-grossing films by year. Also add List of highest-grossing South Indian films of 2013 to the list, which was created today. Procyon117 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also inappropriate usage of the election infobox. Procyon117 (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Socialist Caucus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was already deleted as it disambiguated between two entities without their own articles and that weren't explicitly referenced in the linked articles. This disambiguation was apparently recreated only a few months after it was deleted, but this time with an extra "caucus" that is also not mentioned in the linked article. None of the original deletion rationale appears to have been addressed in its recreation, so I'm nominating it for deletion a second time. Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing has changed since the first Afd that warrants a different consensus. Sal2100 (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Nothing here warranting reversing the prior AfD outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:54, 2 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 Piero Cotto. ✗plicit 13:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny in the Middle of the Park[edit]

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

Zero mentions in reliable sources. Does not meet notability guidelines. Skyshiftertalk 10:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Skyshiftertalk 10:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would normally suggest a redirect to Piero Cotto as WP:ATD, but that page also seems to have notability issues and should probably be brought to AfD as well. Broc (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Piero Cotto as WP:ATD, after Cavarrone's improvements to the page. Broc (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have rewritten the Piero Cotto page (he won Viña del Mar, entered Sanremo Music Festival, charted in various places, passes GNG), but I had to delete the sentence about the song, as I have not found any RS about it. Cavarrone 12:22, 3 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 Southern Transcon without prejudice against changing to a better target, if found. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crookton, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't keep using WP:NPLACE as a rational and seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. It's just a point on a railway line and I've found no indication that that particular point is of any notability. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Arizona. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not a legally recognized place, and my search on DDG, Google Books and Scholar turned unfruitful. WP:NPLACE says to defer to GNG in this case. It is misleadingly categorized as a populated place in the navbox. Just look at the satellite map to see why that is wrong.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before it was "officially" determined around 2020 that GNIS was not a reliable source, and not a gazetteer after all, because someone (I appreciated the background here) made 10s of thousands of crappy data-dump articles, people like me used it in good faith to label locations as populated places. It's interesting to me that these location AfDs seem to assume that the people who have started these articles were trying to intentionally mislead or even blatantly lie about someplace being a populated place, when in fact we were using what was at one time considered a reliable source. I just want to put it out there for the record. Oh, and I've asked this several times, but what guideline is appropriate to cite for "I looked at the satellite map and determined X."? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'd actually love to find the correct policy or guideline about this as this is also something that comes up a lot in these AfDs. If it's just common sense, that's fine but please say so. It's hard to prove a negative, I get it. In my region, there are reference books where the author writes about interesting places, and he would say that a place was not much of a going concern anymore. (e.g. "It used to have a school, a church, and a store, but there nothing left at the site today.") It's too bad there aren't more such 3rd-party sources around. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This source calls it a railroad station. No indication this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Crook, for whom it is named. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That article has no mention of the place, nor should it, as it's a completely non-notable unpopulated railroad waypoint with no connection to its namesake. They might as well have named it King Henry VIII. In the unlikely event anyone wanted information about Crookton, they would probably search for the railroad division, not the historical figure. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that George Crook is the wrong target for a redirect, but a touch more civility about the matter might be in order. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66, I don't think redirect is a viable alternative to deletion as there are multiple alternative redirects that could be used. E.g. U.S. Route 66 in Arizona or Southern Transcon could also be used in addition to George Crook. I considered redirect prior to nominating this and didn't precisely for that reason. TarnishedPath^talk 03:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per previous discussion. Mangoe (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with appropriate bolding and mention in Southern Transcon (Seligman Subdivision) of the BNSF. There is already a link to Crookton, Arizona in there. (Or possibly integrate into an appropriate Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway article.) And a sincere promise from someone that they will actually do the post-AfD cleanup work necessary (remove from the template it's in and check "what links here", then do what's necessary for our readers to find the topic). Sometimes it's hard to see how a topic is interconnected with the others when you look at "what links here" and most of links are from a template the article is in, so I did some more in-depth searching. Based on that, I made some pointless (if this gets deleted) wls in a few articles (Williams Junction station, Williams Depot, Ash Fork station and a redir from the previously redlinked Crookton Cutoff). Alternatively, redir (with bolding yadda yadda) to U.S. Route 66 in Arizona per the previous AfD, but that seems like unnecessary clutter, and this station is more a rail topic than a road topic. Here, is some more, info (and map) regarding this location. Not based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline that I know of, except common sense, but it might be nice for someone using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to be able to find out why there's something called "Crookton" in Arizona. YMMV, haha. Valfontis (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also linked Crookton Cutoff in Hassayampa Flyer. Incidentally, the cutoff article was a not-ready-for-primetime deleted draftified article. If you don't have access to deleted drafts, it's three unsourced sentences that could easily be researched and added to another rail article, likely doesn't need a standalone. Valfontis (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahmar Movsumov[edit]

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

The person does not meet WPGNG or Anybio; he was the head of some state-owned companies or held other similarly non-notable positions. BoraVoro (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject appears to be a bureaucrat in state bureaucracies of an authoritarian state. There is no independent coverage of the subject on which to build an article. thena (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Gandhi International School, Ahmedabad[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 2 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. Star Mississippi 01:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matěj Kvíčala[edit]

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

With only database source listed, the article of this luger certainly fails WP:GNG. All that came up in my Google search were an interview and trivial mentions; no indication of independent fact checking. Corresponding Czech Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which might help copy over English article otherwise. He was not even one of the top three luge winners at the 2010 Winter Olympics. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 2 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. Star Mississippi 01:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jite Agbro[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO; no WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Nigeria, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several of the references are SIGCOV from newspapers or magazines such as https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2019/11/20/figurative-collage-artist-jite-agbro-explores-who-belongs I think they are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it if my page was not deleted, please tell me how to move forward. I did not write this page, and I'm not a regular Wikipedia user so I'm not sure how to do anything about this. OnaJiteA (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:OnaJiteA just edited this article to make it read like an autobiography (hence the username). I reverted the edit and warned the user. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did realize I was not supposed to edit this page, I got an email saying I should enhance it. I just updated it again, so my apologies. I will stop

editing it now OnaJiteA (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not realize I'm not supposed to edit the page OnaJiteA (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OnaJiteA Hi, from who did you get the email saying you should enhance it? Random emails are highly suspicious and they might be trying to scam you. Read this Wikipedia scam warning and stay aware. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. Nice stuff but WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2019/11/20/figurative-collage-artist-jite-agbro-explores-who-belongs	? Real Change News is a publication of Real Change Homeless Empowerment Project	?		? Unknown
https://artisttrust.org/artists/jite-agbro/	Artist Trust is a 501c3 nonprofit organization that supports working artists of all disciplines in Washington State		Grantee listing	✘ No
https://www.pccmarkets.com/sound-consumer/2020-09/new-jite-agbro-art-at-pcc/	Puget Consumers Co-op		Promotional article about an exhibition	✘ No
https://www.biartmuseum.org/exhibitions/jite-agbro-deserving/			? Listing of "Jite Agbro: Deserving" exhibition at BIMA (Bainbridge Island Museum of Art)	✘ No
https://www.4culture.org/gallery_work/jite-agbro/			? Listing of exhibition by 4Culture - the venue	✘ No
https://museo.cc/jite-agbro			artist statement on gallery site	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190925163156/https://www.thestranger.com/events/26432310/jite-agbro-skpt			local listing for an event	✘ No
https://www.juanalonsostudio.com/front-room-gallery/2017/1/31/guest-artist-jite-agbro			? Gallery site	✘ No
https://madartseattle.com/artists/jite-agbro/			? exhibition listing for MadArt - local art space	✘ No
https://www.bainbridgereview.com/life/bimas-six-new-seasons-shows-open-oct-12/			Multi event listing in Bainbridge Island Review	✘ No
https://www.4culture.org/public_art/your-proper-name/			exhibition listing by sponsor 4Culture	✘ No
https://artgallery.seattlecentral.edu/jite-agbro-armor			listing of exhibit by M. Rosetta Hunter Art Gallery	✘ No
https://www.seattleu.edu/su-today/announcements/blue-is-our-color-black-memory-identity-and-protest.html	?	?	? dead link	? Unknown
https://www.cornish.edu/news/2019-neddy-at-cornish-award-finalists-announced/			listing of Advancement, Neddy at Cornish, press release for 2019 Neddy at Cornish Award Finalists	✘ No
https://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/life/art-galleries-spring-forth-in-may/			multiple listings for art shows; Langley Art Walk is 5-7 p.m.	✘ No
https://artxchange.org/show/artxchange-gallery-bloodlines	?	?	listing for group show	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 2 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 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville SC-Inter Miami Rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NRIVALRY, sports rivalries are not presumed notable. The article is fully unsourced and there is no evidence of notability of this rivalry (no coverage in reliable sources found, and the article itself claims the rivalry has only started in 2020). Broc (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United States of America. Broc (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero sources, no indication that there is a real rivalry. Svartner (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another pointless head to head, WP:NOSTATS article! The people that create these need to be WP:TROUTed. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No references, no mention of this as a rivalry at either of the clubs' articles. —C.Fred (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Doesn't meet WP:NRIVALRY. Also, I did some googling on this subject and couldn't find anything that said anything about a rivalry, but I did find matches against one another. I'm concerned about the article's creation being nominated by an apparent new user who created it on the same day. Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once Messi leaves Inter Miami, this is going to be just as much a rival as Dolphins/Titans (as in non-existent). Would've been rejected in draftspace, where it did not originate. Nate • (chatter) 16:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems to lack reliable sources to back up the rivalry claim. While matches exist, rivalry needs a stronger foundation. Waqar💬 17:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though there is probably something of a burgeoning rivalry between the teams, this is definitely a WP:TNT situation. Doesn't help that all of the citations are primary and are predominantly routine match reporting. Maybe someday, but not this article. Jay eyem (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to call this a rivalry looks like trying to introduce a novel idea. Geschichte (talk) 01:49, 4 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!} 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E@I[edit]

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

Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this educational conference, only things hitting on Euler's complex numbers. Sourcing used appears primary. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, Technology, Internet, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization is well known in Esperanto-speaking circles, and I would expect most sources to be in that language. This search found a number of articles in news org sources that discuss the organization: [46] (takes a moment to load the results). I think they're enough to demonstrate notability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 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!} 21:23, 17 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!} 23:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not finding significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Tagged "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources" since March 2017. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the numerous Esperanto-language sources from the search results I linked above? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could pull out a WP:THREE from those search results. -- asilvering (talk) 05:30, 1 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, Daniel (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any major news articles or independent reviews about this. The information seems to come from the conference organizers themselves, and it's been flagged for a while for needing more reliable sources. Waqar💬 17:30, 3 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 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukkulankulam Sivan Kovil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources, and I could not find any. Same issues as previous AfD. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Buddhism, and Sri Lanka. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the nominator of the previous AfD this article lacks any reliable independent sources and as previously indicated a search doesnt come up with any either - still fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find any sources in a BEFORE search. Fails to meet WP:GNG. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the previous nomination. The lack of reliable sources is concerning. Without them, it's hard to verify the information. Waqar💬 15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article currently lacks reliable sources to support the information presented. We require citations from credible sources to ensure accuracy.Antimargi (talk) 05:54, 6 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!} 04:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Brown[edit]

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

Olympic rower who did not receive a medal and does not meet either Olympic notability for athletes who received medals or general notability based on significant coverage. The only reference is a database entry. Heymann criterion is to find significant coverage within seven days and expand this stub.

Draftify as nominator to allow six months to find significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Canada. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG, see sigcov here, here, here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by BeanieFan11 are more than suitable for meeting the WP:GNG, as they each provide in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. There are recent articles about him being inducted in the HOF of his school, but that is mostly local coverage which is still not notable enough. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded pretty trivial until I checked the articles, and he was inducted over 65 years later, with significant coverage, albeit local. Nfitz (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Though the older sources presented by Beaniefan are mostly about Canadian football and not rowing, it seems possible to craft a decent article from them and they are reliable. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's excellent coverage, albeit a bit regional. Digging into the national media, there's brief mentions of him in the 1960s and 1970s (coaching) in the Globe and Mail - not GNG in themselves, but not local. Nfitz (talk) 00:39, 7 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 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melody & Harmony[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:BAND, with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, just a few album reviews on music blogs. Wikishovel (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 05:37, 18 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!} 05:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: One look at their Spotify page will show you they have 2 monthly listeners, clearly not WP:N. However, I don't want to be too rash when arguing for delete, and in this case, I think we could draftify the article so it can be improved, and inevitably apply for submission if/when the band becomes more notable. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for draftifying this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find sources. Don't see a reason to keep a draft when sources don't exist to write an article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Badly sourced article about a musical band that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I think draftifying only works when there is suspect of the article's near notability, but it isn't here. There is blatant failure of WP:NBAND, and can't be saved (when there is no notable musician in the band). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. It appears as though multiple editors have a different assessment of the article than I do. I'll withdraw this. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPath^talk 03:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Canadian church burnings[edit]

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

This is a hot mess of original research seeking to lump together the arsons of a group of churches to particular prior events on the basis of speculation only. Of the church arsons listed in the article no motive is cited to reliable sources. WP:TNT is required at the very least. TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Religion, Christianity, Canada, United States of America, Colorado, and North America. TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: A CBC News investigation three years after the fact should be enough to evidence the notability of this subject. See coverage in the BBC, Guardian (and again), and New York Times. It was so notable, Trudeau had to make a statement about it. TarnishedPath, retract this AfD. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I am unable to see how this nomination represents a competent, good faith appraisal of the reliable sources. Existing references 1, 2, 6, 20, and 25 are to CTV, CBC, BBC, and two different CBC stories, respectively, which specifically connect the arsons to the mass graves allegations. The article's language documents speculation as speculation, attributes statements, and overall shows nothing remotely requiring TNT. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 2 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. Hopefully, these new sources can find their way into the article, at least the ones that are reliable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manyiel Wugol[edit]

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

I don’t see how this subject article is notable. Not by anyway meeting the WP:GNG. On the reference section number 5. Instagram reels cannot be use as a source. His just an upcoming basketball player yet to gain fame and notability that meets the general notability guideline. Even the biography there’s no reference to back them up after making my research on Google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Basketball. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sudan and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG: The only potentially reliable source, the Herald sun article, does not mention his name. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant independent coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Changing to weak keep per the sources below. A couple of major Australian news outlets wrote articles on Wugol, which is good enough for me. I still think the article needs those references incorporated as in-line citations, not as a vague external link dump. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete

I found over 5 reliable sources and news article about Manyiel Wugol which shows he’s a well known basketball in Australia . See below

https://pickandroll.com.au/p/bigger-than-basketball-manyiel-wugols

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8102113/sudanese-refugee-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia/

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/unstoppable-african-australian-athletes-smashing-through-the-barriers/97b7l6fjq

https://thewest.com.au/sport/basketball/sudanese-refugee-manyiel-wugol-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia-after-death-of-close-friend-alier-riak-c-9888802 SportsFanatic220 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further review of new soources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for a review of newly discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 2 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. Consensus supports retention. There's no argument that the article is in a sorry state, but a common theme among contributions to this AfD was that there are multiple reliable sources with sufficient coverage of Long to meet GNG. Hopefully their presentation in this AfD will encourage a rewrite to expand this beyond the current uninformative stub. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Long (white supremacist)[edit]

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

I could not find in-depth coverage. He ran for public office but does not meet WP:NPOL nor WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Politics, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that he doesn't pass NPOL or NBIO, but does clear WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in Atkins, Kinsella, Bartley, Sherren, and Perry and Scrivens, plus newspaper coverage. His notability seems to go beyond a single event so WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and RS guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens. Some of the books linked go into a decent amount of detail. A non insignificant figure in Canadian white supremacist groups it seems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:37, 20 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!} 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of this is a now-blocked sock puppet. The article has been here for 17 years, and only has 3 sentences. He doesn't even qualify as WP:SINGLEEVENT. We know he participated in one event where a cross was burned, but gives no details. He could have been just a spectator - or anything - we are not told. Given that the article claims, "he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta", sourced details are needed here. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the sources I linked above? We aren't evaluating the condition of the current article but all sourcing that's available. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source (Washington Post coverage syndicated in the International Herald Tribune) has been added to validate this claim, @Maile66. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't even see coverage in Canadian sources. What's used now seem to be trivial mentions. Lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, agree with Dclemens. Appears significant academic discussion of his role. Definitely seems notable and significant. Article should be improved with those sources, not deleted. Flatthew (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is a mess. I believe the subject is probably notable, but I could make a case for good old TNT without prejudice towards recreation. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in TNTing a stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review sources brought up in this discussion along with any in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with some of the keeps; it doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources are reliable sources, and there's no significant coverage in any of them. The first mentions the subject, not what he's about, when he was born, what he did in his life, and none of that (which should be a common start in a Wikipedia article). The second one links you to a Google book without telling you what it's about. There is no significant coverage in sight in that link. The third source is not specific; it just points to a list of books without telling you what the subject is about, like all others. Based on what I've viewed with the links and research, there aren't enough sources to meet WP:BLPS; since the person is living, precise sources are needed. Have a look at WP:NPF and WP:PROVEIT. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

*:Also, all of the links Dclemens1971 has sent are all broad, they don't really lead anywhere specifically and I think since this person is living, more precise sources are needed. Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Normanhunter2 They're books. You can't upload full copies of books online, as that is a copyright violation. I accessed them and determined most of them constitute SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand they're books, but WP:BLPS have strict sourcing when it comes to living persons, and as I said in my vote, I don't think I am comfortable with this article on Wikipedia. Normanhunter2 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 Your argument makes no sense. Most of the provided sources are high quality academic books - what exactly is unreliable about them? They're far more reliable than say, newspaper articles. Those are the best kinds of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a link to a cover of a book, not whats within it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2....??? Do you expect people to commit copyright violations to prove it to you? I checked the books myself, they contain sigcov. You can't link anything else besides say, Google Book listings, or you would be committing a crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to a limited extent, you can search within the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, you would know WP:DBTN wouldn't you? I'm merely suggesting that since it's a link to a cover of the book, it wouldn't be considered a source because to me, it's not reliable and it clearly says in there that the piece of work itself can affect reliability, which is my main argument here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 Those are all links to Google Book listings for the page that 1) show you what book exists, who published it, when, enabling someone to search it out 2) a searchable version of the book's contents, which can verify the information. What is your issue with it?

The link doesn't matter. Offline sources are perfectly fine. The Google Books link is merely a helpful way to find if a book discusses a topic: I have verified that at least three of them do. This is enough for GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @PARAKANYAA for doing the source analysis below. I'll be honest, @Normanhunter2, your assertion that the "none of the sources are reliable sources" is quite strange. The Atkins book is a standard reference work on extremist organizations published by Bloomsbury Academic, a major academic press. The Kinsella book is published by Harper Collins. Both contain significant coverage of Long, which you can see with the in-text search. Bartley is a respected professor at a major Canadian university and his book has sigcov of Long on pages 248-271. Sherren is a prominent journalist who discusses Long in his memoir. And Perry & Scrivens mention Long on four different pages of a book from a respected academic press. Telling us that "they don't really lead anywhere specifically" and that "it's just a link to a cover of a book" suggests that you didn't bother to evaluate the sources. Finally, no one here is attempting to bite the newcomers. I've been active on Wikipedia for years but started engaging in AfDs only about six months ago, and I spent a lot of time observing and learning. I made some mistakes along the way, and I still do now and again, but learning from other participants and taking their proposed sources and analysis seriously has made me a much better editor. For a new editor who's very, very quickly gotten involved in AfD discussions, I would invite you to be a little less dogmatic and a little more open to the sources that your fellow editors turn up as part of this process. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's significant coverage in the books you're researching, then there should be no problem gathering the information off of the book and placing it into the article. Now, I've scanned through the sources, and find it strange that most of the sources come from books, which are written by ideas of people. As for the articles content, I suggest going over WP:ONEVENT, some text inside of it states: 1. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." 2. "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed." You might ask me, what are you trying to prove here? The answer is, the amount of content on the page, and the single event on the article, I don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. In the simplest terms possible, if the article has only one notable, highly significant event possible, then the article should be included. In this case, looking at the event in the article, there is a tiny, minuscule event there without any information. I know the Wikipedia guidelines are different then what other people think when they read the article, but to me, when I am viewing the article, In the 1980s and early 1990s, he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta. doesnt..quite make sense to me. There is no aftermath of the rally, no pictures of the rally or the person either. We only know this person exists through text. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about WP:CONTN, disregard the message where it includes the articles content. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start with all these ideas!?
There is nothing that requires an editor to add the content to the article if he or she supplies it in an AfD as evidence of notability. (I have my own editorial priorities and limited time to participate in Wikipedia.)

You "find it strange that most of the sources come from books." Read WP:RS -- the kinds of books I have suggested here (academic books and books published by major publishing houses) are, depending on the context, generally considered high-quality sources. Plus, I have mentioned newspaper sources (several in the article and more here along with book texts you can evaluate with a free archive.org account: https://archive.org/details/texts?tab=collection&query=%22terry+long%22+%22provost%2C+alberta%22&sin=TXT.

The presence of pictures is not an indicator or notability, nor is their absence evidence of non-notability.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned the guideline WP:RS, what inside of the section should I be looking at here to get a better understanding of your argument here? I'm sure you know that there needs to be multiple, reliable sources on here. Could you explain how the book sources are reliable? It would be helpful if you provided enough information on the books to establish readability on the sources to make sure they're books, otherwise, it could potentially be deleted. Could you also explain to me how those sources fit into the article, and also reliable as well? I'm still sticking to my WP:ONEEVENT point, because it is true that there's only one event on that article (unless if you find another event). Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 Why is any source reliable? They're published from qualified major publishers with a reputation for fact checking. What information do you have that they're unreliable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are usually significantly worse sources than books, FWIW: if there's a reliable book source I would almost always rather use that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you've answered your own question at the first part of your sentence. What information do you have that they're reliable? I should be asking you that contradictory question here.

1. For this sentence "Terry Long (born May 1, 1946) is the former leader of Aryan Nations in Canada" there's 3 sources that apparently connect to the source, almost a WP:CITEKILL and a WP:REFBOMB.

2. For the sake of it, I did some research on the authors (obviously using google), and i found some that are deemed not notable. See here, and here.

3. For the 4th footnote I couldn't find anything about that, and no link has been provided for the newspaper source, that's a little problem here. (If you could provide me the link to that newspaper link then I would go over and read it, but otherwise I wouldn't consider that a source at all).

4. I went to archive.org and looked at the sources, turns out that it does mention the subject. But still, based on what I've seen here, it's not a notable event. Read WP:BLP1E, it states: "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.", which it does on the newspaper article here. The second reason according to the guideline The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.". As mentioned on the article, the person is only recognized for one event, which kind of makes this a low-profile individual. Last one here: "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." On the newspaper article, it does not thoroughly explain his mention of organizing a white-supremacist group and what he did specifically in that event. All it says is In 1990, the Canadian Aryan Nations’ leader, then Terry Long, organized a white-supremacist gathering in rural Provost, Alberta, that made for the first time that Canadians felt that hate was sprouting from their soil. (it also briely explained that they burnt down a cross and displayed swastikas at non-racism protesters) So this also fails WP:BLP1E too, not enough in-depth coverage at all. In fact, this event has very little significance.

5. Just a side note here, I would vote on even a weak keep here, but I think delete is the best option here. If the article had more information about the event, I'd gladly change my vote here. But otherwise, I am sticking to my nomination here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 The NOTABILITY of an article topic is unrelated to the state of the article. Sourcing exists. I volunteer to improve the article should it be kept with the available sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the "one event"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. That is irrelevant to the general notability of the article: notability does not depend on the current state of the article, it depends on the existences of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think they're reliable sources? Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because they're published by reliable authors and publishers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they reliable when I couldn't find them by doing a simple google search? Even on the books section too. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2

"how are they reliable when i couldn't find them on google"

oh my god.

Google is bad. Google has no determination on source reliability. Google does not show you the most reliable sources. Most of what you find on Google nowadays is AI generated spam nonsense that is less than worthless.

Best sources are academic books and journals, neither of which you will find on Google. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if Google is bad, then wouldn't Google Books or Google Scholar be bad too because they branch off of it? There's also AI generated spam for books and even scholars too, it's everywhere. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google, the search engine, is not good for searching for serious academic treatment of topics. Google Books and Google Scholar aren't perfect but are OK for books and journal articles respectively. They contain some garbage but good stuff too. Google, be it books/scholar or the search engine is nothing but a venue for which to search for sources. Source reliability does not depend on popularity - the Daily Mail is plenty popular, but is one of the least reliable sources imaginable, but a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They never sourced the Daily Mail on the article. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 ... I don't even know what to say at this point I think this might be a CIR issue PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not a CIR issue, and you probably knew I was kidding about that. If you didn't, I apologize for that. On the article though, they sourced The Ottowan Citizen but I can't find the page or the year of the release where it says that information. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 The sources currently in the article don't matter. IIRC the Ottawa Citizen is on newspapers.com so I can go check that later. We have plenty of book sources listed below that are much more reliable and significant than what newspaper coverage is there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E, there's only one event on the article. I'm not saying "significant event' because it barely has any coverage of it right now. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 What is in the article right now has no bearing on notability. That is not what BLP1E means. Read WP:NEXIST PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one small event exists in the article, that's my problem here. Not enough significant coverage on it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 What exists in the article at the moment is completely unrelated to its notability, given the capacity for improvement with existing sources. WP:NPOSSIBLE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's based on it's reliability. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 ... of the sources that exist, yes? Which we have repeatedly established. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well..I mean the reliability of the source. If it's a strong one, or a weak source, or a source that doesn't related to the subject at all. That's why I did my inital research of the sources on the article to make sure they were correct.

Even if they were correct, they still are written by people with their own ideas and perspectives of things in the real world. I believe that only notable authors can be accepted as reliable and not unknown authors. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanhunter2 The idea that only notable authors are allowed as reliable sources is absolutely ludicrous and under this standard 90% of articles on wiki are not notable. There is not a single aspect of policy that reflects this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I've said enough about this nomination. We'll see what people think about this. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I've blocked Normanhunter2 as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Source analysis, since no one else felt like doing it:

Atkins: This is an encyclopedia of the far right, contains a full length entry on Long. Describes him as "one of Canada's leading" far right figures.

That Wasn't The Plan, couldn't find a copy of this, but from the Google Books preview it seems to discuss Long in depth, going into his plans for racist groups in Alberta in some detail.

Perry & Scrivens seems to be passing mentions

Kinsella seems to have at least two pages of coverage on him on 135-136, as well as 158-159.

Bartley contains sigcov throughout the book, describing Long as a "huge benefit" to recruiters for the KKK, and generally his involvement in these circles.

In conclusion, he passes the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bartley book has a couple of dozen pages on him, as listed in the index. Ditto Perry and Scrivens - see pg 273 of the index which shows extensive coverage. Lamona (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971's review of RS coverage. Seems like the subject has a notable nasty streak. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus to Delete here. An editor can create a redirect if you believe that action is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kiper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted last December because Kiper was deemed non-notable. An editor re-created the page today on the basis that Kiper was included in a single poll, which doesn't really address the fundamental lack of notability and is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage (if you even consider it coverage). They also added 5 new sources: a press release from Kiper's website, three clearly WP:ROTM news articles (one just says he filed to run and the other two are about candidate forums he appeared at), and the aforementioned poll. I don't see how any of this overrides the finding of the previous deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Food and drink, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a delete, it's all stories about what he wants to do if elected, nothing of which is any different than any other candidate's articles when they run. This is simple news reporting. A favorability poll isn't really notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify: Article reads like an advert, and subject doesn't look notable enough. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a multitude of changes to the article today--cleaned up the sources, added missing information, changed the voice, and eliminated some information. Hope that helps. RainbowPanda420 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort, but the new sources you added seem to be more WP:ROTM coverage from local outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if someone wrote a book and mentioned in it that he deserved a Wikipedia article, he might get on the front page. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest: Really? That's your rebuttal? Do you have any actual reason why Kiper's page should not be deleted? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: I just gave you one, the article I mentioned has nothing but ROTM and incidental references, and yet nobody's nominating that for deletion. Kiper is running for governor of an American state and is being included in debates and other events with the other candidates. Given your incivil tone, I honestly think that your nomination has some kind of ulterior purpose. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're right, I must have an ulterior motive for deleting this random dude's Wikipedia page. And all the other editors who are agreeing with me and voting to delete? I must have paid them to further my nefarious agenda... BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: A "random dude" who has spoken at numerous events and been in polls along the other candidates he's running against who do have articles. Then again, if your argument was stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to your tone. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest: Being included in a poll and speaking at events does not prove notability. That's to be expected of just about any candidate in an election. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians and political candidates. Then again, if your argument was stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to your tone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: Luckily, that's just your opinion and not what is actually expressed regarding Wikipedia's notability guidelines you referenced. Then again, I would expect you to know that if you weren't so busy engaging in personal attacks against the opinions of others.

Keep: User @BottleOfChocolateMilk should note that the "Granite State Poll" result they removed from 2024 New Hampshire Gubernatorial is currently included on the articles for the same gubernatorial race in 2022 and 2020. In this poll, Kiper was included and received 16%---more than candidate Volinsky received in the same poll in 2020.

Coverage of Kiper is not ROTM---there is only one TV station in New Hampshire. Economies of scale. For example, nearly every one of New Hampshire's 400 state representatives is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, despite each only representing about 3,000 people. Consider this in comparison to the deletion of Manny Cid's article, a deletion attributed in part to his being a mayor of a city with "only" 30,000 residents. In New Hampshire, only 6 of 234 municipalities meet that population threshold. Notability must consider unique regional characteristics and local relevance. User @BottleOfChocolateMilk may be too inexperienced with the subject matter to effectively identify notability. (Ironic detail---two of Kiper's known endorsers have Wikipedia articles, and they are both New Hampshire state lawmakers.)

From Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

"The following are presumed to be notable:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."

There is substantial news coverage of Kiper from multiple journalists in print and on television, and this coverage has included both trivial mentions as well as Kiper serving as the main topic of the source material. (see article references 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26)

In fact, Kiper has received coverage from NH's sole TV station while other candidates have not---Ballotpedia shows a 6-way Republican primary as well as two independent candidates. Four of the Republicans have not received news coverage, and neither of the two independent candidates have been covered. In a spread of 11 candidates, only 5 have received coverage, including Kiper.

Additionally, of the 11 candidates to be listed on the ballot, only five were included in the Granite State Poll---Kiper among them. Due to contrast in local media coverage alone, Kiper is notable.

Kiper article satisfies the criteria for notability. RainbowPanda420 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RainbowPanda420: Rather than spreading conspiracy theories, you could simply have read my stated reason for removing the poll, which is that it only measured favorability and did not test the Democratic gubernatorial candidates against each other. Also, Kiper's news coverage doesn't become non-ROTM just because the state is small. ROTM means that the coverage is normal and part of a news station's regular, necessitated coverage of events, which is the case here. The argument about state legislators is irrelevant because state legislators are automatically considered notable. I'm not going to bother arguing against every stupid point you made, like how Kiper being endorsed by notable people somehow proves he's notable. Essentially, by your logic, every semi-serious candidate in New Hampshire would be considered notable, which I disagree with. Even ignoring your repeated personal attacks, your essay falls flat. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)\[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: It's the height of hypocrisy to accuse someone of personal attacks and then claim their opinion is "stupid". I hope that the closing administrator here can take that into account when assessing this user's viewpoints in this discussion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates are not notable just for being candidates, that is long standing consensus on this site, and he doesn't meet the exception (that their candidacy is LASTING). He would not be otherwise notable, so deletion is the correct result, and easily so. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the note about GNG applying below, the political campaign stuff specifically doesn't apply and the other articles are not about him, so doesn't meet GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's received coverage from various outlets and he's also received coverage for his non-political work. There are plenty of other individuals on Wikipedia who have done far less and achieved notability and his notability is going to grow over the next several months as he campaigns. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for deletion unfortunately - political candidates are deleted unless they are otherwise notable, as they always receive a certain level of coverage and are rarely notable after the campaign finishes. If the campaign itself had sustained coverage that's a different story, but that is incredibly rare at this level of election. The coverage of his restaurant isn't coverage of him and would not make him notable enough for a Wikipedia if he hadn't ran for office, either. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. WP:NPOL is the relevant guideline and I don't believe the subject meets this standard so he would have to meet GNG. A source analysis would be helpful here. There are two other points, the previous AFD closed as a Redirect, not a Deletion. Secondly, there is subpar behavior on the part of several participants which are snide remarks. If this continues, I will block editors from particpating in this AFD during its duration. Please, this is not how experienced editors talk to each other. Very disappointing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, I would absolutely be in favor of a redirect. As for the question about sources, as has been mentioned previously by several voters, nearly every article cited on the page is WP:ROTM coverage of either the campaign or Kiper's restaurant (and, as others pointed out, coverage of Kiper's restaurant helps establish the notability of the restaurant, not Kiper himself). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. In almost any political year, non notables run for office, for the free publicity it gives them and/or their non-political careers. This is one of those. He has no past history of political office experience. Most of the article is about is his non-political background. The section "Political career" is misleading, as he's had no career in politics other than a zoning board and town council. Attending a college rally as a spectator in the crowd is not notable. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or restore redirect (probably with protection this time). As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. Being included in public opinion polls is not a notability criterion, so the attempt above to claim that he's notable because he polled higher in 2024 than some other guy did in the past doesn't wash — that other guy actually held a notable office, so the fact that he didn't win one particular election is irrelevant because he's more than just an unelected candidate by virtue of having held a different NPOL-passing office. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but absolutely nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given that the origional redirect was reverted, I would support any protection level that would keep that from happening again. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Candidates for a state-wide race should be redirected to the election race, as a usual and appropriate outcome, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. The sourcing does not suggest a GNG pass. I agree that protection should be given to prevent a new article from being created until such time as the subject wins election to an NPOL office. Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 2 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.