Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 5

< July 04 July 06 >

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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Floyd

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lloyd Floyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accvording to Pepapapopo (talk · contribs): only one actual article about this guy is sourced, otherwise filled with unsourced information and i doubt this meets the notability requirements. An article was previously deleted at AfD, but I cannot determine if it was about the same person as this one, an American video game voice actor. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:56, 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 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! 23:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four-Forest Bilingual International School

[edit]
Four-Forest Bilingual International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a school in Switzerland, and cannot find information or references to add. No reliable, independent secondary sources have covered it as far as I can establish. It has been tagged with notability concerns since November last year. No obvious redirect target. It was established in 2007, so part of the problem may just be lack of time for it to become notable. The article was created in 2008, by an SPA, FF-School (talk · contribs). Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. Thanks to CFA for creating the new article. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lagarde

[edit]
Battle of Lagarde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First, WP:D states that we should only disambiguate when "for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead". I think the reference to "Wikipedia article" impliedly means English Wikipedia, not foreign-language Wikipedias. Indeed, MOS:DABMENTION requires that each entry have a blue-linked article, not an interwiki link. Second, the change requires adding a disambiguator to an otherwise unambiguous article title. Finally, there are a significant number of incoming links to this title, presumably because the intended link was Battle of Lagarde (1940), which had been around for 9.5 years at its old title. (A hatnote is not an appropriate alternative because WP:REDHAT states that a hatnote cannot lead to a red link.) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:33, 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 no consensus‎. After discarding the clearly canvassed votes, and the views not based on P&G (or incorrectly based on them), we're left with no consensus either way. Since the subject of the article chose a public life, arguments for privacy have limited weight here. Broad participation, including by some of the project's most experienced editors, makes it unlikely relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Knight

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Aimee Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi, I’ve nominated this page for deletion as I’m not sure whether they are relevant enough to warrant an entire wikipedia page, politicians who’ve stood for election and lost with less than 2% of the vote don’t generally get Wikipedia pages, especially when they’ve done nothing of much note after the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisediting (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF doesn't offer much definition of who counts as an NPF, but links to WP:LOWPROFILE. That says Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Knight today does not seek out media attention, but from 2015-8, she was an active campaigner and political candidate, clearly repeatedly seeking media attention. Ergo, she does not come under WP:NPF. Bondegezou (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin delete this comment and block this person for using such a language! FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only "problem" with the redaction is that it proved my point that there are massive WP:NPF concerns with this article, which is about a non-public figure. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a numerical consensus to Keep, they are weak Keeps with no reference to policy or sources. Also most participants have, what I consider, low edit counts so I'm not sure how familiar they are with the norms of AFD discussions. I'd just like to relist and hopefully hear how this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability and, specifically, what reliable independent sources provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are MULTIPLE reliable sources about the subject cited on the page, notability is obviously established, keep. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: although not a notable as a politician, there is a substantial coverage from reliable sources that Checks all the boxes of WP:GNG comment there is coverage but the page is mostly about David Challenor, Knight's father, and gives undue weight to Challenor. If the article is kept, can someone fix this problem please and create a separate article for David Challenor (currently a redirect) because he actually deserves one with all of the coverage. I am really concerned about why this article was first created and I can’t assume good faith looking to keep votes above. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very difficult case. She's borderline notable, but mostly for other people's wrong-doing and the way it affected her. I don't think it's realistic to have an article on this subject that adheres to the spirit of WP:BLP while also respecting WP:WEIGHT. That is, when the notability claim isn't extremely sound to begin with, and the source of that notability would demand a largely negative article chiefly related to the misdeeds of other people, we arrive at an exceptional scenario. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY: I just rewrote the article to be less of a train wreck. There's still some work to do but it no longer repeats her fathers crimes in every section and no longer misrepresents the sources as more critical than they are. I'm very sympathetic to arguments presented by @SportingFlyer, @Rhododendrites, @Say ocean again, and @SnowFire - but think that she is clearly notable to the extent we can't simply delete the article. We have sustained coverage over years detailing how she was a rising star for the greens and held prominent positions, engaged in advocacy, and her career was very publicly derailed following her father's conviction. I believe we should focus on making sure everything there is due and the BLP issues are handled sensitively rather than deleting it. I pinged y'all to see if my edits fixing the ostentatious BLP issues persuade you the article is salvagable, no worries if not. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure this is an improvement. By removing that the protest was related to her father's crimes, you've made the Reddit protest make no sense in your version as coming from seemingly out of nowhere. If she's going to have an article at all, it's going to need to include when her father was relevant to her biography in all of the parts it is relevant (which is unfortunately quite a lot of it), which is why I'd rather just delete entirely. Additionally, there are still aspects that are only questionably relevant - like why are we listing exactly all of her psychological conditions? Obviously autism is a bit of a special case as many people consider that a core part of their identity, but I'm not so sure Knight considers it that, and then that leaves why the others anyway (which are implicitly equated with the autism spectrum)? Your version has also added in more commentary from Knight (e.g. including the IMO fairly meaningless "she condemns the tweets" - of course she does, or including a long quote from her on resigning from the Green Party rather than simply saying it was due to transphobia). If we set aside her father's actions... what distinguishes Knight from any other activist? Not much, as best I can tell. This is not something article editing can really fix. This is an odd version of Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, where she's borderline notable but that notability is tied up in a non-notable person's negative coverage. SnowFire (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd concur. I was struggling to understand why this article stood out to me amongst the dozens of political articles I've read at AfD, but notability isn't inherited. If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes, you're left with only a few local political articles, and a couple articles or posts on social media that she wrote herself - in short, the type of local activist that wouldn't normally be eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes - The articles that are indirectly about his crimes are directly about her. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The indirect articles are just the local political articles I was referring to. Apart from an interview, she's not really notable outside the incident. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer suggests that If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes, you're left with only a few local political articles, and a couple articles or posts on social media that she wrote herself. Looking at the current references, there are several about her father's crimes and several that are local political articles, but other references are not that. I would pick out the following. 7 is a significant interview with a national newspaper unrelated to her father. 5 is a short interview with the same national newspaper a year earlier, unrelated to her father. 4 is not related to her father and, while a minor publication, isn't a local political article. 9, 10 are less significant publications, but national and not local, about another smaller issue involving Knight (not related to her father). 39 is about her and about her partner's behaviour, not her father's crimes, and is a national newspaper. There is then her departure from Reddit, most notably national newspaper coverage in 40. This was related to her father's crimes, but only indirectly and is broader than that (as it also relates to her partner's behaviour). Bondegezou (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a Society interview, where people who aren't normally famous or notable get an interview in the Guardian. The second might be okay but again is an interview and would be considered primary. The third is a blog. 9 and 10 she is simply quoted as a spokesperson, the article is not about her at all. 39 and 40 has the same problem as I mentioned - even if it wasn't her father it was her partner. There's simply not a lot here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at the first 10 references in the article (and there are plenty more). These are:
  • [3] Substantial piece about her and her father about event 1
  • [4] Substantial piece about her about event 2
  • [5] Substantial piece about her (event 2)
  • [6] Substantial piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
  • [7] Shorter piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
  • [8] Substantial piece about her (event 1)
  • [9] Substantial piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
  • [10] Shorter piece about her (event 1)
  • [11] Shorter piece mentioning her (event 3)
  • [12] Short piece mentioning her (event 3)
There is coverage of multiple different events/stages of her life, with several substantial articles about her. As I said, this clearly passes WP:GNG. If the article needs work, fix it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maxisediting, may I ask if you have any relation to Knight at all, even if it is being something such as an acquaintance? Considering the past history of the subject of the article (especially the brief tenure at Reddit) and this deletion page is your only edit right after you signed up, at least some suspicions are harboured. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hi, no relation to knight. have made anonymous edits before but stumbled across this page and just found it strange that such a minor figure had such an article, had some concerns about what the real purpose of the article was. worthwhile discussion on both sides though Maxisediting (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just be aware that this discussion has also been linked to by Kiwi Farms and so there may be some interference ran by users from that site. Digestive Biscuit (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While as a queer person myself, I am very sympathetic to the subject as a victim of crime, I have real concerns that I share with others who have written about this. My biggest concerns are BLP and TNT. The main claims to notability are the same as those that contribute to violations of our BLP rules. It’s such a mess that it could be deleted for that reason alone. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-chosen local politician. The rest is mostly voluntary work. Looks like puffery. The sources are not specifically about her. The Banner talk 10:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. The Delete views make good points. But if there are editors familiar with our notability guidelines willing to work on the page in draftspace, I see no immediate imperative to remove it. Owen× ☎ 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the United States

[edit]
Invasion of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has substantial issues including general copy-editing, severe lack of sources for much of what is stated, and is a general mishmash of actual "invasions", speculative ideas about potential invasions, and (until recent edits) covering completely non-related topics such as nuclear and cyberattacks.

Believe article should be moved to draft given the significant levels of issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Even with the nom's rightful removal of sci-fi cryptofacist fanfiction that took the article completely off the rails, this article is in need of serious help and sourcing, maybe even an entirely new title. As is, 'invasion' is doing very heavy lifting here, as only Pearl Harbor and Imperial Army attempts to get to the mainland during WWII could really be considered as such. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A reasonable person could absolutely make the case that putting all these disparate events into one article isn't WP:OR, but it feels like OR to me. The burning of DC during the War of 1812 and Pearl Harbor and the start of the Mexican-American War are all important events that should (and do) have their own coverage, but putting them all together without directly addressing that they are in most respects very different events seems like the passive suggestion of a connection that may not be merited in fact or sourcing. I think it's possible to write an article that is not subject to this problem, but it would look very different from this one. Off the top of my head, it's that "invasion" suggests that one party was the aggressor, and the relationships between America-Britain, America-Mexico, and America-Japan right before the invasion events were all very different. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see no purpose in draftifying; this article is a mess of pure WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fine as a category. In theory "Invasions of the United States" could be something, but better to start from scratch. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As currently written, this is probably a WP:COATRACK. Nevertheless, I would be inclined to keep, but make it as a List page. As of note, we have a disambig. page Invasion USA. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serves no real purpose. Way too much SYNTH. Also, the redirect has nothing to do with this page. It's referencing movie titles and a single album. Intothatdarkness 19:05, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Union Centre of Curaçao

[edit]
Trade Union Centre of Curaçao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG, with the only reference being a listing. Speedy was declined so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that a BEFORE didn't come up with any sources to lend the subject meeting any notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The organization is best known as Sentral di Sindikatonan di Korsou, in Papiamento language. I added two references. It is one of the trade union associations of Curacao and represents ten local trade unions. The article requires more work. I hope to be able to find the time. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What is the target article being proposed for a possible redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao

[edit]
Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a case of WP:INHERITED notability, given people largely talk about him in relation to his father. I can't check two of the sources here (and one is a WP:NOBITS) but the one I could find, as well as my searches of the internet returned no new sources for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 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! 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I find this [13] and this [14] which I think is the same person that is the subject of the wiki article. Name or portions of the name seem to be very common, so it's hard to determine notability in sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan

[edit]
List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTH - Fails GNG. Those suggesting to keep this article must substantiate with evidence from RS that these listed "phenomena" are indeed are "Internet phenomena in Pakistan." Also delete per @Arms & Hearts, who stated here given the existence of List of Internet phenomena and the fact that the internet, by its very nature, isn't affected by national boundaries, this seems unnecessary. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NLIST. Direct and in-depth coverage in Dawn ([15]), Hindustan Times ([16]), Times of India ([17]), NPR ([18]), Proft by Pakistan Today ([19]), Youlin ([20]). Additional coverage in academic journals ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]). Saqib, we're here to WP:BUILDWP, not to destroy. AFDs with lacking proper WP:BEFORE are becoming common in your case. Combined with the fact that you rarely vote to keep ([30]), it shows how ardent a deletionist you are and how much damage is being done with these bad nominations. I have question: how many times you have rescued a topic that was up for deletion but was kept due to your proper BEFORE. I don't think there are many you can show us. Please stop nominating these borderline notable topics or someone has to ask admins to stop this. 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello IP - the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the coverage you provided are primarily focus on some memes and the provided coverage doesn't even mention Internet phenomena in Pakistan so please just avoid WP:FAKE, as well WP:SYNTH, like i said before. Additionally, I can understand your frustration with my AFDs, so if you believe a t/ban is warranted, I encourage you to raise it at the appropriate forum, not in AFDs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify IP points out several nice sources above, but none of them are used in this article. It could be reasonable to write about Pakistan's internet culture and use of memes (if if's even distinct from anywhere else), but that is not this article. Here is just five specific incidents. Just because something was briefly trending on Twitter does not make it a "phenomenon" or notable. Surely there are many thousands of videos that have gone viral or resulted in a hashtag, but this not the place to compile anything that "generated trolling on social media" or resulted in people making memes. The global internet culture has changed so that many topics see brief fame, but Wikipedia is not the place to synthesize them like this. Reywas92Talk 01:09, 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! 23:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 presented sources that deal with the topic as a set, so that the list meets the requirement for notability. If the sources, that can be added at any time, are judged to focus only on (a list of) memes and/or the name of the page is considered inaccurate, then rename List of Internet memes in Pakistan. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I like to repeat that the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the sources IP provided above primarily focus on some memes without mentioning the subject of the article which is Internet phenomena in Pakistan. So how can it be claimed that the list meets the requirement for notability when the coverage does not even discuss the subject? And suggesting it to rename to List of Internet memes in Pakistan raises the question of whether such lists are generally permissible? Typically, WP does not host such lists, although every country may have its own memes. This would be like having List of Internet memes in the United States or List of Internet memes in India. Pointless. Right? And sure If we were to pursue this, the list must meet WP:NLIST / WP:STANDALONE , which requires coverage directly about the list itself, not merely individual memes. This topic clearly fails WP:LISTCRITERIA so let's please avoid WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE etc. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll repeat myself too, then. I explained why I think this list does meet WP:NLIST: there are reliable sources discussing the subject as a set. Renaming it is just an adjustment restricting the scope (memes being Internet phenomena). Permissible, yes, very much so, for the reason that it meets the guideline about lists. Feel free to create lists of Internet memes in other countries if you have the time and interest and you can find sources. It is certainly not pointless, no, since you're asking me. The rest of the guidelines you mention etc. is not exactly necessary if you read my !vote with attention but thank you for your time and effort. Should you consider replying until I agree with your view or for other reasons, I apologise in advance for not making any further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, No, I don't expect you to agree with me. You've your opinion and I've mine, but I reserve the right to counter your arguments, if I see them not aligning with policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP: INDISCRIMINATE. It's not reasonable to compile an endless list of non notable memes. Codenamewolf (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to List of Internet memes in Pakistan per Mushy Yank. Meets WP:NLIST which says ... a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. and WP:NEXIST says Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article These memes are discussed as a set in Urdu references as well such as [31], [32], [33], [34] in reputed publication like BBC Urdu. 91.74.118.185 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To establish WP:N based on GNG, you've provided total 04 sources but all from the same publication, BBC Urdu and per GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. However, that's not my primary concern. What I'm worried about is whether we truly need a List of Internet memes in Pakistan as I don't believe it still passes the WP:N test. Generally, we don't create stand-alone lists like "List of X" unless X itself is a well-established encyclopedic topic with its own standalone articles. In this case, none of the memes or phenomena have their own standalone articles, which raises concerns about potentially violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE - a policy on avoiding indiscriminate collections of information. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issue with WP:SYNTH is concerning. Lorstaking (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Cortalano

[edit]
CJ Cortalano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this rugby league player to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was coverage of his high school wrestling days. JTtheOG (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pro footballer who played at the 2017 RLWC. Fleets (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated in 2022. Biographies of living persons require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 22 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! 23:51, 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! 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – most search results are only of brief mentions or squad lists – and one interview on USARL website (Cortalano Leading by Example) - no other significant coverage. EdwardUK (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States men%27s national rugby league team#Current squad. Delete. Doesn't pass WP:RU/N, since Cortalano played for the United States men's national rugby league team (Eagles), not for the United States men's national rugby union team (Hawks). USA domestic leagues aren't notable either. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Based on my search, this article is the only one that addresses it directly, and I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable secondary source: [35] Tau Corvi (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eunkyong Choi

[edit]
Eunkyong Choi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources, nor meet WP:JUDGE. Special trial judges are mere employees of the court they sit on and are not Senate confirmed positions, similar to magistrate judges. The first source is a blog, the second is a press release, the third is Ballotpedia, and the last one is independent but lacks depth. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 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. If an editor wanted to work on this article in Draft space in the future and submit it to AFC for review, contact me or WP:REFUND. But moving it directly back to main space will result in a CSD G4 speedy deletion and that would not result in a restoration. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Seoul car crash

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2024 Seoul car crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not met. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of legislation per WP:EFFECT. Comment I disagree with some of the defense of this article. I don't agree that the derogitory remarks or the investigations into them count as notability per WP:EFFECT. Those are just things that happened, not impact on society/legislation.
Also to people editing the article, please be more mindful about trying to assert that something is objectively notable in Wikipedia's voice, per MOS:OFCOURSE. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What legislation? The article only mentions investigations and an emergency order, none of which is legislation. This occurred less than a week ago. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction which passes legislation that quickly, except in extraordinary circumstances. This is just another news story that will be forgotten about by the time there's any lasting impact. That's the reason for all the Wikilawyering and other maneuvering I see going on, just like any number of other news stories that are (almost) immediately AFD'ed and defended based on the mere presence of X number of citations. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh whoops, TIL the definition of "legislation" isn't just "government action". Striking my keep vote. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Government action is still a lasting effect that will result in this incident being remembered. You’re basically saying that Executive Order 9981 is not notable because it’s just government action, not actual legislation. 2A01:B747:6F:314:C534:B05B:949A:C2E4 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all executive actions are created equal. You cannot seriously be comparing an executive action in the aftermath of WWII by one of the most important figures of the 20th century to this. These orders are also more fragile than robust legislation. It also doesn't help that Korea engages in action theater often after these kinds of incidents.
The reason I haven't flipped my vote to delete is because it remains to be seen for me if anything more weighty does happen 211.43.120.242 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'll vote draftify until more significant evidence for notability emerges 211.43.120.242 (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Run of the mill accident. If this were deliberate I would have voted otherwise. Borgenland (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In my opinion, this document is not described from a neutral point of view, because I think that quoting news that has brought about a community response on the Internet and writing down the Derogatory Remarks category hurts neutrality.
Wildcro (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet notability per GNG. This is sadly run of the mill in South Korea. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note, but I wouldn't say these kinds of accidents are run of the mill particularly in South Korea; the number of deaths in this incident is really high. People are also especially incensed by it because the people who caused the crash have been really cagey, which is probably why people care about the article. What is common is outrage and action theater, which is really common anywhere. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. —Kusma (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Weild IV

[edit]
David Weild IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have read this page history and noticed it was very advert. It is suspicious that such non-notable people listed on Wikipedia, because Weild IV is WP:ONEEVENT. Notice, the Article was created/edited by banned or blocked users, or in violation of general sanctions (WP:COI template missed) such as User:Jeremy112233 (Author). In summary, the page doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO and feels like Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. I thanks many editors who've been involved in page history to clean up many advert things, but WP:G5 should be considered/applied here.--Indiana's Football (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to WP:ZEALOUS,WP:DOUBT and seems like No Consensus here cancellation could be applied here.Indiana's Football (talk) 06:21, 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! 20:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bogucice

[edit]
Battle of Bogucice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD |)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a battle in Bogucice. Olek Novy (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article should be removed because of the controversy, the source on which the article is based is "Volodymyr Viatrovich" considered to be an unreliable historian who tried to cover up the Volhyn massacre and I am in favour of removing the article, as well as this article Battle of Gdeszyn and that Defense of Kopanki. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 20:20, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Educational institutions in Kothamangalam

[edit]
Educational institutions in Kothamangalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable list per WP:LIST. WP:DIRECTORY applies too with no WP:SIGCOV for any of the listed entities. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Most of the first paragraph also has nothing to do with the actual title. Procyon117 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, merge with Kothamangalam, Kerala#Education. Procyon117 (talk) 14:44, 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 redirect‎ to 2009 Dutch Figure Skating Championships#Pairs. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Koenderink

[edit]
Ben Koenderink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable skater; no medal placement at any level; medal placement at the junior level does not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE; no competition beyond junior level; absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:20, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshaya Alshi (fashion blogger)

[edit]
Akshaya Alshi (fashion blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repost of material previously deleted and salted at Akshaya Alshi * Pppery * it has begun... 19:18, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setuptools

[edit]
Setuptools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was nominated via proposed deletion for the reason "None of the included references appear to be significant coverage from a reliable source." PROD was removed with the rationale "irrespective of WP:USEFUL, my recollection is notability is lowered for open-source? No time for source hunting so if convinced, please take to AfD, but would be a shame" So, the person doing the removal thinks it would be a shame, thinks there might be some sort of carve-out of notability standards for open-source software, but can't be bothered to verify that or to look for better sourcing. I don't think any of those are valid reasons to decline a nomination, but that's how PROD works so here we are. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:09, 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Eleven (company)

[edit]
Double Eleven (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I failed to find WP:SIGCOV besides simple announcements, sponsored articles, and primary source interviews. This indicates a failure of WP:ORGTRIV, which excludes "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". Notability is also not inherited from the games themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject to a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Eleven, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The developer appears notable enough to be mentione somewhere as an WP:ATD. Also related to Pneuma insidermedia.com IgelRM (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is enough coverage about the company itself to amount to WP:SIGCOV. The two articles presented above by OceanHok are particularly in-depth. The company has also received a lot of less-in-depth coverage about their games. While notability is not inherited, these articles do focus more on the company than you might expect because of the specific agreement they were trying to reach about the game (ex: [38][39][40]). Coverage definitely adds up to NCORP. C F A 💬 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG based on sources presented above. Sal2100 (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Kaari Utrio. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanajan Joanna

[edit]
Vanajan Joanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK / WP:GNG. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Kaari Utrio, but as this has no sourced information, I am not sure it should be merged. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 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! 17:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Kaari Utrio: Does not meet WP:NBOOK or GNG. Essentially no coverage about the book at all, which probably explains why the article is completely unreferenced. There isn't really anything to merge. C F A 💬 23:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I suppose a redirect wouldn't hurt. All I found were sales sites (in Finnish). If there are reviews they would be in Finnish newspapers and journals and I would not be able to locate or search those. I note that there are other books in the list in Kaari Utrio that also have no sources and virtually no content, e.g. Porvarin morsian. It looks like a bit of cleanup is needed. Lamona (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kaari Utrio as and alternative to deletion. I can't find any meaningful coverage from online searches, or the NLF historical newspaper archive: only a couple of passing mentions where the book is included in some list or another without any additional commentary. There might be something in offline sources (and the 90s is a bit tricky w/r/t archive access due to copyright stuff), but hypothetical sources don't count. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:39, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Chockalingam

[edit]
T. S. Chockalingam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A "renowned" journalist according to the page but references fall well short of showing notability. CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed out one extensive biography but the rest are as you say ("indicate"). We need in-depth coverage and not just mentions. Is there something other than the first reference that is in-depth?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear unwilling to examine sources yourself, however, the onus is on you to demonstrate why the sources I've mentioned do not satisfy the GNG/BIO. Please note WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Moreover, he can be accorded presumed notability due to NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why the pointed comments. It is as if I just came along and randomly recommended a page for deletion. I did a BEFORE and read through your links above. Mentions do not add up to notability. If you are unwilling to point out in-depth coverage, there is nothing else I can review. As far as conduct, keep in mind this is a discussion, not an argument. Please keep it corrigible. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you find this pointed, I apologise, but you have not addressed the responses to the nomination. Please address the P&G issues raised (BASIC, NEXIST, NPOL) and note the Indian Express archive where there is extensive SIGCOV reporting of Chockalingam. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did address those, just obviously not to your satisfaction. And at this point, your aggressiveness is not something I am about to entertain further. I will let the AfD play out as it will.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks, thank you. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:49, 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 Procedural keep since I didn't see the PROD. Withdrawing nom. (non-admin closure)‎ Sincerely, Dilettante 17:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Seoul car crash

[edit]
2024 Seoul car crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brought to my attention by ITNC. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EVENTCRIT#4. It can be undeleted later if there is any actual impact. Also against the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:29, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Capita Australia

[edit]
Per Capita Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. Essentially no coverage in independent, reliable sources at all. A Google search only returns the organization's website. In-article references are mostly WP:REFBOMBING: Lots of primary sources to the org's website. Independent sources don't mention the subject at all. Probably WP:UPE, article reads promotional and the creator has only ever edited this article. Looks like this was previously deleted and endorsed at WP:DRV under a shorter title. I suggest salting to prevent recreation. Not sure why this was accepted by AfC. C F A 💬 16:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely agree with @CFA. W9793 (talk) 22:40, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Bastien

[edit]
Vincent Bastien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cited sources do not establish notability, and could not find anything more convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not enough coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR. The NYT source above is not actually a review, and instead just offers a trivial mention of him and his book; the rest of the article is about something completely different. The other link is not an independent review either. The Maeil Business News source is the best available, but aside than that I can't find anything about him at all. Appears to just be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL businessman who also wrote a book. McSyl, I recommend you strike out your vote because simply writing a book does nothing to contribute to notability. I could write a book right now and pay for it to be published. That obviously does not make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. C F A 💬 00:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. No indications of notability elsewhere in the citations or from a quick search. nf utvol (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability as noted in the WP:PROF test. He appears to be little more than an adjunct and retired run of the mill businessman. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 22:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ELKO theory

[edit]
ELKO theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article based upon one source which has been cited 4 times, plus a second more cited source that has nothing to do with the topic. The page was previously deleted, and as part of NPR I tagged a newly created version for questionable notability, no significant scientific coverage and in need of better sourcing to avoid a future AfD. Editor User:TakuyaMurata immediately removed the maintenance tag of notability claiming that a Google search indicates that it is notable; I find no evidence of this. Hence time for an AfD as not notable for a more complete discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Perhaps the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass dimension one fermions is helpful here. There does seem to exist some sufficient amount of publications to justify the notability (please Google with “elko field” too). According to the previous AfD, there is some coi issue, which I cannot tell just from looking at the article alone. But at least the notability is considered, it looked ok to me. Needless to say, the more citations and references there are the better (and more such are probably needed). —- Taku (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saying "Google it" is absolutely useless for determining notability. What reliable, independent, secondary sources exist now that didn't exist in 2020? XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not new. But in order to determine if the topic is notable or not, we just look at the amount/quality of publications: Google is a standard way to see that. I suppose you can create the appearance of research activities by citing each other (not saying this one is). That’s not a good practice but Wikipedia isn’t a place to judge whether certain research activities are genuine or not. —- Taku (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Google is not "a standard way to see" how much relevant, peer-reviewed material there is on a topic. General-purpose Google has never been good for that — and grows worse by the day — and even Google Scholar is only useful if employed carefully.
    What peer-reviewed publications, not written by the original inventors of this idea, discuss it in depth? Name three. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it matters much whether some papers are independent of the creator of the theory. In some field, the originators have a very strong influence; that doesn’t mean the theory is not notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. As a research activity, that’s too promotional and problematic? Perhaps, but again in Wikipedia we don’t judge the quality of the research. I know especially for biographical articles, we need secondary sources but research articles are somehow different (again because of the way some research topics are pursued). The existence of the textbook I mentioned below especially seems a very strong indication for the notability, since the publisher thinks the topic is worth publishing. —- Taku (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it very much matters, by policy. A textbook by one of the authors of the original publication is not an independent source. It's very much the opposite of an independent source. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said above, some research topic just doesn’t develop independent of the originator. That should not be a ground for non-notability. Of course, the textbook isn’t an independent source but, unlike bio articles, it doesn’t mean it is not a reliable source; that part of policy isn’t about like textbooks that can be cited. If interpreted literally, it’s like you can’t cite Grothendieck since he is involved in the creation of scheme theory. It doesn’t work that way when we cover scientific topics; throughout Wikipedia, we do cite plenty of textbooks that are not independent of the subject. —- Taku (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (To add, it seems there is a conflict of reliability: in academia, a primary source is usually considered more reliable than the secondary one. Because of this, even in Wikipedia, for scientific articles, we often prefer to cite textbooks by the authors close to the subject than the secondary ones. —- Taku (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    We can cite textbooks and monographs and review articles by people involved with an article topic. But we don't base notability decisions on them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For scientific topics, I think a primary textbook can be counted towards the notablity. We have the notability criterion in part because we need reliable sources to write an article. For scientific articles, primary sources can be reliable (arguably more reliable in some instances). So, the existence of such sources could and should be a ground for the notability. Here, it is important to note that the textbook in question is published from a reputable publisher not a self-publishing book. —- Taku (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, primary sources aren't enough. Otherwise anyone who managed to get a paper published in a journal could claim that their work deserves a Wikipedia article. And that just isn't the case. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, a primary paper isn’t sufficient. A textbook seems different though: not anyone can publish a textbook (except self-publishing ones). A textbook from a reputable publisher thus should count something. (I guess, in a sense, you can say a textbook isn’t completely primary; it comes with a sort of authorization from a publisher.) Taku (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the exact same logic, a published paper wouldn't be "primary", because it "comes with a sort of authorization from a publisher". Moreover, the book you linked is a monograph, not a textbook: it's a single-author work in which the author describes their own research. Cambridge UP has printed dozens of those. Some of them are on notable topics, others perhaps not. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that monographs (yes, I should have said textbook or monograph as the book is a monograph) are more selective and fewer than journal papers. A reputable series like the Cambridge one does not publish books on topics that are fringe or of marginal research interest. In that way, being part of the series gives the topic a sort of authority; in fact, we often use some selective list or awards to determine a given topic is notable or not (and the Cambridge series is independent of the subject). I agree some topic covered in the series is something quite personal, something inseparable from the author. But as said above, I don’t think that is a problem. A one-man’s work can be perfectly notable. Taku (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, there is apparently a book about the topic according to the previous AfD (I think this one [44], which isn’t a self-published one). That seems significant. Maybe the previous article was promotional in tone (which I don’t know since I can’t see the deleted article), but this article doesn’t sound promotional in tone. —- Taku (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    XOR'easter, for clarity I don't see your vote on the AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't had time to come to a final judgment yet. The current state of the article would incline me to !vote "delete", but I wanted to sift the literature myself first. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Insufficient sources to support notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a topic that has not been influential beyond its originators in a significant way. No prejudice against recreation if someone finds sources that demonstrate otherwise. Some of the language, like historically overlooked for uncertain reasons, reads like personal reflection; this appears to be the outgrowth of a deletion debate on a topic that an editor found technically interesting and perhaps should have been written for the arXiv instead of Wikipedia. XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday (American band)

[edit]
Mayday (American band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. One of their album articles has one source that reviews the album and that's all I can find. Do not confuse this band with Mayday (Taiwanese band) or ¡Mayday!, two other bands that are both actually notable * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can understand a WP:BEFORE search getting a little crossed up with noise from the other bands with the same name, but this group was widely covered in its day, as one would have expected from a Saddle Creek Records band. The album articles were recently redirected to this band page, and they should be restored; their 2005 release, for instance, meets WP:NALBUM with [45], [46], [47]. Chubbles (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to what has been linked, there is also an article by Indy Week, an article in Spin (magazine), an article in the Dallas Observer, a review in Visions, a review by Ox-Fanzine, a review (pages 65-66) in Clamor (magazine), a review (page 40) in SLUG Magazine, and a review in No Depression (magazine). And while I know that interviews don't establish notability, there is an article in the Deseret News among others. toweli (talk) 18:10, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ildikó von Habsburg

[edit]
Ildikó von Habsburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ildikó von Habsburg is not notable. WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BLPFAMILY - relationships do not confer notability and they are not notable as an equestrian. D1551D3N7 (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The Vanity Fair article is alright, but there isn't really anything outside of that. The other articles cited are all primarily about the family, which don't count towards notability per WP:INHERIT. For example, this index.hu source (cited in the article) roughly translates to "this is how the great-grandchildren of the last Hungarian king, Zsófia and Ildikó Habsburg, live." The article is based on the fact that they are the great-grandchildren of the king. It's possible this could be redirected somewhere but I can't find a suitable target; ping me if you find one. C F A 💬 01:06, 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. Per WP:SNOW: In terms of pure numbers, this is at 27-5. It is obviously not going to be deleted. There is little point in continuing the discussion. Consensus is clear that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to future election articles because it is known that the election will occur in the future. These exact types of discussions frequently occur right after major elections and always result in a keep. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 01:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next United Kingdom general election

[edit]
Next United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Won't be notable for years. Author is refusing to redirect the article despite numerous forced redirects. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 12:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forced redirects are disruptive as they violate WP:BLANK. No opinion on the article at hand. Noah, BSBATalk 12:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Blank-and-redirects are allowed under WP:BLAR. The redirects were not controversial because the author reverted the redirects, not separate users. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s supposed to be discussed after the redirection is reverted. Forcing a redirect again despite objection is not supported by policy and guidelines. Noah, BSBATalk 13:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address that the election is not notable now. No reason this can't be a draft. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a substantive comment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This election should not be compared with others because its date is unknown. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#2028 United States presidential election held that if an article cannot be written on an election, as it cannot be now, it should not have an article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown date seems irrelevant. The date of the next election in most Westminster-style governments is always unknown until just weeks prior, either because of a lack of any fixed election schedule or because of the ability to call snap elections even where a fixed date nominally exists. There have been "next general election" articles for many of these in the past, including the UK. They usually state that the election must take place "no later than," or "on or before," a certain date. So comparison can easily be made with others of the same type (e.g. Next New Zealand general election, Next Australian federal election, 45th Canadian federal election.) Lack of sources or relevance could still be a valid reason to delete in theory, but the date has nothing to do with it. Zachldl (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't see why this shouldn't stay as is. There's only 2 seats left to be declared and Keir Starmer has already been appointed Prime Minister. The election is basically over.
Juneauite (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not address the AfD reasoning. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Won't be notable for years." Is just untrue. The next national election for a major country is notable. DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it will be notable when there are sources written for it. Next Nova Scotia general election is marginally notable because some discussion has occurred about the election in Canadian media. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event is still not notable, so WP:CRYSTAL would not apply until this event was notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ElijahPepe Why do you keep saying it's "not notable"? That hasn't been established - quite the opposite. Can you prove that's it not notable? I can find lots of media discussion regarding it
[48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these citations concern the same claim by Nigel Farage. The chances of Reform UK gaining 322 seats, a prediction wagered years before an election would even be scheduled, are unrealistically low. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether they concern Nigel Farage, they are talking about it and discussing it, no? DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:CRYSTAL declares a 2028 US Presidential election notable, then the Next UK General Election is also notable. 64.66.123.248 (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2028 United States presidential election is not notable, according to the RfD I linked above, and has been creation protected. One statement is hardly enough to justify this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an official Wikipedia policy. DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been creation protected because "The established consensus for election articles is that they should not be moved to mainspace until after the previous election has taken place," per the note on the draft article. The 2024 election has taken place in the UK. It's time for this to be created, and we're moving into WP:SNOW territory. 64.66.123.248 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Creating an article for the next general election has been the practice on WP for many years, it makes sense, and it provides a convenient place for inclusion of election-focused content such as opinion polling results over time. SS451 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion polling has not occurred yet. This would be great justification for the draftspace. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on why I think it has been the practice and how it's helpful: for readers not familiar with the UK system of a parliament having a maximum duration but no minimum duration, clicking through from the most recent completed election to the "Next election" article gives them a quick rundown of how the system of dissolving Parliament and calling a new election works, and explains why there is no specific date attached, unlike for example the next French presidential election. It's better to have that information available in one place together with the specific information about how that system applies to the next election than to require readers to search elsewhere. SS451 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't understand there are any reason to delete the page. Obviously UK will have a next general election in no more than 5 years. Awdqmb (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We just had the last election, yesterday. TooSoon at this point for the 2029 one. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, but I fear we're in tiny minority. Athel cb (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 1) multiple other AfDs on next elections; 2) WP:CRYSTALBALL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place - event is notable (it's an election) and it's indeed "almost certain to take place"; 3) it's not true that "won't be notable for years": it already is, but will be even more notable as soon as opinion polls start being published (which will take days, weeks at most, not years). Impru20talk 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are, actually: one analyzing how Labour's feeble vote share in 2024 could be an opportunity for other parties come the "next election", one commenting procedural issues on the next election's date, betting odds on the next UK election (yes, really)... this without the already forementioned facts of this being a notable event almost certain to take place (thus complies with CRYSTAL) and that there will be opinion polls coming out within the next weeks at latest. Impru20talk 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the article though. Out of those three, only one is reliable enough. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Not in the article" is not a valid reason for deletion: notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. The sources are available online, and I literally added the three first Google results in a rutinary search. Plus, the fact that there were sources on the subject already less than 24 hours after the previous election was over says quite a lot about the topic's notability. Impru20talk 23:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 not enough? We have definitely knew a general election will hold no later than August 2029. Awdqmb (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very obvious as to why this should be kept, confused this is even being raised. Kioj156 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:SNOW. It's standard procedure to have an article on the next election after the last one is over, and it's always a few weeks at most before an opinion poll comes out as a source about the election. I'm really not sure what this discussion is meant to achieve. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Precedent has always had the 'next' article created immediately after the previous election. I don't know why this is considered 'not notable': it is literally a general election that will occur at some point in the future, issues such as target seats for the next election are already relevant and we will have an opinion poll at some point in the next few weeks. The media will almost certainly start discussing it almost immediately anyway.Mozartnut (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Precedent has provided for the creation of next election articles for UK elections immediately after the election has been held. It also meets the notability requirement as people are already discussing the next election. If polling is the issue, as you noted above, I'd like to point out the first polls for the election we just had were conducted just one month after the 2019 election. Polling for the 2019 election began even quicker, with the first polls being conducted just two days after the 2017 election. Point is that we'll have polls sooner rather than later, so if we delete this article we'll just have to bring it right back again. PlateOfToast (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
draftify until there is something more to say other than the basics of what an election in the UK looks like (since that is duplicative of content already on Wiki) SecretName101 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eventhough, the date for the next election is still unknown, and no major article has been written on this topic as of yet (which obviously makes sense, given we just had one), but we all know that next general election in UK will eventually happen, and when it does it will be an issue that everybody will be talking about and then, it's bound to be the top story in every major news-sites. It may have been a little early to already have an article for the next general election, but since it's already here, no point of deleting, since we all know that some day it'll need to be created in either ways. When major sources for this article does happen, we can simply add them for citation, but deleting the entire article is unnecessary and irrelevant. - Ashik Rahik (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I remember this exact same thing happened in 2019. Moondragon21 (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don’t know why you want to delete this article? There will be another general election and it is due in 2029 - this page will soon have lots of links pointing to it. Just keep it.
  • Delete Currently this page has nothing about the next election on it. It is just reciting what happened in the current election and the rules for how an election works, which is available in plenty of places elsewhere. I think until actual information and discussion about the next election occurs, this should be deleted. Tedster41 (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is significant and previous precedent shows this article has had this same argument already happen and been kept. Deleting this article also would be entirely useless since this article will be put up at some point in the future even if deleted. As well it is very much notable, as it is a national election that will occur. CIN I&II (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the UK becomes a dictatorship which isn’t currently legal they will be another UK general election. King4852 (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources discussing it yet, and per WP:FUTUREEVENT which says Such articles are not appropriate if nothing can be said about the event that is verifiable and not original research. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - soon the first opinion polls on the new government will come and the should be included in an ‘Opinion Polling’ section of this article, per precedent and standard practice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcaoat (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have used used this page regularly as my first point of reference (its an old link cleared down and updated to reflect the occurrence 2024 General Election) in the past as it held details of all the parliamentary polls during a Government's 5 year term and the next polls will be released in the next few weeks if not days and given the tenuous nature of Labour's victory (only 34% of the vote) changes in polling could well have a significant impact on the course of this government from the outset. There is nothing that focuses a member of Parliaments mind more than a poll suggesting they might lose their seat. Equally in the longer term it sets the mood for all the local elections that occur in the 5 years before the next mandatory General election (it is feasible albeit in this case unlikely there could be a General before the 5 year maximum) so this page is relevant pretty much immediately. Not only that the way the page has been structured in the past it identifies major events such as the change of a party leader in a way that allows analysis of how that change impacts the party's fortunes in the polls. The Conservative leader is standing down so as their leadership transition progresses polling is like to reflect that. Consequently the idea that the information on this page will not be relevant for 5 years is false. it is relevant almost immediately and because it acts as a poll tracker of all UK Parliamentary polls for that Parliament its relevant throughout the whole length of that Parliament.
  • Keep Last Thursday, as far as I know, will not be the last ever general election in the UK. There will be more opinion polls published soon as well (primarily, initially, to test approval levels of the new government). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevecgit (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the 2024 election page was created in October 2019 and survived a AFD, 2019 election page was created about the same time as the 2017 election etc, Don't see the point of an AFD as it seems traditional for an article of the next election to be created soon after the last one and there already has 6 refs and more are probably out there so I think this is an easy keep. Knockknock987 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether the polling data is verifiable or not, all the polling companies publish their political polling results on their web sites so if you feel the need to check them its very easy to do. How verifiable other links might be I do not know and it may be that odd links are not satisfactory but that in itself no reason to remove the page, just the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.1.29 (talk) 20:05, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omani Sindhi

[edit]
Omani Sindhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails notability and verification. It is a good example of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR to categorize different communities originating from Sindh, Balochistan and Gujarat as Omani Sindhi, a title which has not been used to refer to any of them in the sources used. At a glance it looks like content FORK of articles like Al-Lawatia, Jadgal people etc. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:30, 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. The nomination did not present a valid rationale for deletion, and the Delete !voters had ample time to review and dispute the sources presented here, leaving us with a rough consensus to keep. I also went ahead and renamed the page to Dot's Pretzels as requested here, but that is an editorial choice outside the scope of this AfD, so any editor is welcome to revert or reverse this. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dot's Homestyle Pretzels

[edit]
Dot's Homestyle Pretzels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is of a promotional nature. Although the article has Forbes contributor source which is not reliable and prohibited RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Vincent, Brittany (2023-12-28). "Your New Favorite Salty Snack: All Dot's Pretzels Flavors—Ranked Best to Worst". Parade. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

      This is a 1,342-word article about the company and its pretzel flavors. The article notes: "Dot's Pretzels was founded by Dorothy "Dot" Henke. Dot originally created the recipe for the popular pretzels in her home kitchen in North Dakota as a homemade snack for friends and family. The seasoned pretzel twists she came up with while experimenting one holiday season were so well received that she decided to turn her culinary creation into a business—and Dot's Pretzels was born. ... Why Are Dot's Pretzels So Expensive? Dot's Pretzels tend to be pricier than some other pretzel brands. There are a few reasons for this. First and foremost, a lot more goes into baking these braided pretzel twists than just mixing them together, adding some salt flakes, and calling it a day."

    2. Benham, Herb (2022-06-19). "In a twist over delicious pretzels". The Bakersfield Californian. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

      The article notes: "Why can't I stop eating these pretzels? What's in them? Dot's Homestyle Pretzels are like the crack cocaine of salty snacks. ... Dot's were different. They had something, a flavor I couldn't stay away from. Some flicker of palate recognition. Like a good red wine, the pretzels had a taste delivered late, but consistently, that was addicting, which I couldn't identify and, since I couldn't, I had to have another handful to see if I could."

    3. Vondracek, Christopher (2019-12-20). "Dot's Homestyle Pretzels goes nationwide, adding more flavors — and a candy bar". Billings Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

      The article notes: "For the last decade, Henke has been herself - or, at least her products have carried her name. Matriculated from a treat baked and bagged in the kitchen adjacent the Velva grocery store, Dot's Homestyle is now sold in True Value stores in every state in the nation. According to Nielsen data, Dot's ranked sixth on the list of highest-selling pretzels in 2019 (up there with pantry standards, like Rold Gold and Snyder's of Hanover)."

    4. Hutton, Rachel (2018-11-24). "How Dot's Pretzels became the Midwest's new food phenom. From two-sheet-pan operation to the Target shelves: A retiree's snacktastic success story outlasts the oil boom". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

      The article notes: "Dot's Homestyle Pretzels look like the typical russet-hued twists passed around while watching a game. Their seasoning is barely visible, but unmistakable: beginning with a whiff of synthetic butter, blooming into a garlicky umami with a slight tang, and finishing with a mild afterburn. Whatever it is, it has people hooked. Dorothy "Dot" Henke, who lives near Velva, N.D., a small town outside Minot, launched her seasoned pretzel business as a two-sheet-pan, home kitchen operation. Her timing couldn't have been better."

    5. Schmidt, Helmut (2019-10-23). "'Dot' of Dot's Homestyle Pretzels shares success story". Billings Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

      The article notes: "They went to a lot of Pride of Dakota shows and other trade shows, then sought out a commercial kitchen. They later bought a run-down building in Velva and refurbished it, opening there in November 2012. ... Dot's buys its pretzel twists from a larger firm, and the firm's employees coat them in oil and a blend of seasons, bake, cool and repackage them."

    6. Diesfeld, Elise (2020-06-24). "Best Bites: Dot's Homestyle Pretzels". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

      The review notes: "But if the snack mix includes Dot’s Homestyle Pretzels, there is a 100% chance I’m reaching for them first. The twisted pretzel rods are coated with a light secret seasoning that is just enough to leave a little bit of residue on your fingers."

    7. Jackson, Sharyn (2019-05-06). "Wildly popular Dot's Homestyle Pretzels now come in candy bar form". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

      The article notes: "Diehard fans of Dot’s Homestyle Pretzels would likely agree that the beloved pretzel born in North Dakota doesn’t need much improvement. But Dorothy “Dot” Henke, the snack’s creator, has big ideas for her brand found in gas stations and hardware stores across the Midwest. Enter the Mr. Dot Bar. Three flavors (milk chocolate with toffee, dark chocolate with toffee, and “white candy bar”) incorporate Henke’s signature garlic and onion-seasoned buttermilk pretzels."

    8. Schramm, Jill (2012-11-12). "Velva, ND, businesswoman has passion for pretzels". Grand Forks Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

      The article notes: "A Pride of Dakota product, Dot's Homestyle Pretzels was an idea that actually formulated in Arizona, where Henke and her husband, Randy, spend the winters. Relatives of Randy's, who now are Henke's business partners in Arizona, were the first to suggest that Henke go beyond making the pretzels just for her own family."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dot's Homestyle Pretzels to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: RodrigoIPacce (talk · contribs), Oaktree b (talk · contribs), and MrSchimpf (talk · contribs), I've posted a list of sources I found about Dot's Homestyle Pretzels. Would you review the sources? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible speedy keep due to invalid rationale given by the nominator. Per WP:ARTN Article content does not determine notability so saying that the article is promotional is not a valid reason for deletion especially when the nominator didn't spend any time doing proper WP:BEFORE or point out what is promotional? Anyways, I found some additional in-depth coverage about this topic ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61]) even though Cunard has already done a good job. I'd say keep and rename the article to Dot's Pretzels as the current title of the article is not common. 144.86.182.35 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard's sources and other similar I found. The existence of sub par sourcing doesn't mean GNG level doesn't exist. I also second IP 144 re: the rename as it's more common in the sourcing I found. Star Mississippi 00:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One question to consider before identifying the appropriate guidelines - since this article is about a "brand", what guidelines apply? A brand is neither a company nor a "product" per se, therefore strictly speaking WP:NCORP doesn't apply. Equally though, if it is a "brand", we therefore require sources that talk to the topic - that is, the brand. Sources that talk only about individual products under the brand are discussions about a product. Cunard has identified several sources that talk about the brand - that is the "range" of individual products - and that sourcing meets WP:GNG criteria. For example, this in Parade provide a good overview of the brand, as does this in the Star Tribune. HighKing++ 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volpi Foods

[edit]
Volpi Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of links to confirm the relevance of the article. Advertising text RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Luongo, C. Paul (1980). America's Best! 100. New York: Sterling Publishing. pp. 186–188. ISBN 0-8069-0178-0. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Prosciutto means "ham" in Italian, and only the best ham legs are used to make this delicacy. Air curing, careful aging, hand rubbing, and even a properly aged building makes John Volpi & Company's "Splendor Brand" America's best prosciutto."

      The book notes: "John Volpi came to St. Louis from Milan in 1898. He was a sausage-maker by trade, and word spread of the quality of the work he did for local households. Soon, he was shipping sausage to Chicago and New York. He founded the Volpi Company in 1905 and his brother-in-law, Gino Pasetti, became his partner. Armando Pasetti immigrated to America in 1938 and inherited the company in 1957 after the elder Pasetti and Volpi died within a vear of each other. There are now fifteen people working at the plant, which produces 30,000 to 40,000 prosciuttos a year."

    2. Saveur (2008) [2001]. Saveur Cooks Authentic Italian. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-8118-6574-6. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "In the close-knit, lively St. Louis neighborhood known as the Hill," writes St. Louis native Bill Sertl, "food is the tie that binds and satisfies. A one-square-mile Italian stronghold just west of Downtown and the Gateway Arch, the Hill-where about 75 percent of the residents are still of Italian ancestry (the first Italians arrived here in the 1880s)—is home to shops like Volpi Italian Foods, producer of some of the best salami and prosciutto in America. Above the meat cases are vintage photographs, one of a delivery truck in the '40s and another of company founder John Volpi. Pudgy sausages hang from the rafters, and the countertops are crammed with impulse buys—Italian licorice, chocolate-covered coffee beans, packages of dried porcini. Overseeing the whole operation is Armando Pasetti, an outgoing Lombard who is John Volpi's nephew and who took over the company after his uncle's death in 1957."

    3. Schiavo, Giovanni Ermenegildo (1975). The Italians in Missouri. New York: Arno Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-405-06421-0. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Volpi Packing Company was founded by Mr. John Volpi, who has been assisted for many years past by Mr. Gino Pasetti. It manufactures salami after the Italian style such as Genoa mortadella, capicollo, soppresse, prosciutti, coppa, etc., known all over the country as "Splendor Brand." As a matter of fact, the Volpi products are sold from Chicago to New Orleans, from New York to San Francisco. The Volpi plant is one of the few of its kind among Italians in the United States, and owes its rapid growth and steady expansion to the superiority of its quality and to the attention that many years of experience have taught Mr. Volpi to give his products, which in 1922 were awarded a Gold Medal at the Cremona (Italy) Exhibition. After all, twenty-nine years of ever growing business speak for the confidence that people have in the Volpi products."

    4. Fox, Tim, ed. (1995). Where We Live: A Guide to St. Louis Communities. St. Louis, Missouri: Missouri Historical Society Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-883982-12-6. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Google Books.

      The image caption notes: "Volpi's salami factory, c. 1910. This Italian specialty food store, which opened on the Hill in 1902, was started by John Volpi, who brought in his brother-in-law, Gino Pasetti, as a business partner. Like many Hill businesses, Volpi's has stayed in the family; it is now owned and run by Armando Pasetti, who started out as an apprentice for his uncles in 1938 and took over the business in 1958. Photograph reprinted with permission of the collection of Armando Pasetti."

    5. Vitale, Rio (2014). St. Louis's The Hill. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-4671-1221-5. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "In 1907, John Volpi established a business at Edwards Street and Daggett Avenue. It continues to operate and manufacture Italian salami and sausage today. John Volpi was assisted for many years by Gino Pasetti. In 1922, their products were awarded a gold medal at the Cremona Exhibition in Italy. Armando Passetti (far left) is the nephew of John Volpi. When he was 14, Armando was asked by his uncle to come from Italy to learn the trade. In 1957, Armando Passetti became the president of Volpi Foods Inc. Since then, he has implemented improvements in technology and equipment without sacrificing quality or compromising the founder's standards of excellence. (Courtesy of Angela Passetti Holland.)"

    6. Bannoura, Sara (2020-05-26). "St. Louis' Volpi Foods has been refining the art of dry-curing meat for over a century". Feast Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

      The article notes: "Lorenza Pasetti takes a specialized horse bone in her hand. With the pointy end of the filed-down bone, she gently pokes a leg of prosciutto. Then, she smells it. It’s the same delicate process her great-uncle John Volpi used more than 100 years ago when he first started Volpi Foods in The Hill neighborhood of St. Louis. Using the horse bone to determine the performance of the production process is one of many techniques that have remained unchanged at Volpi Foods. The lauded local company is known across the country for its artisan cured meats, which are still made from recipes dating back to the early 1900s. The company’s history begins in 1900, when a 21-year-old John Volpi emigrated from Milan, Italy, to the United States – St. Louis, to be exact – in search of a better life."

    7. Blume, Aimee (2014-05-14). "Salami in St. Louis: Shop in city's Italian enclave started in 1902". San Angelo Standard-Times. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

      The article notes: "The tiny corner store is the same location where Giovanni (John) Volpi began his salami and prosciutto business more than 100 years ago, in 1902. Step inside and find yourself surrounded with hanging and stacked salamis, fresh sausages, wheels and wedges of cheese, and other imported Italian goods. ... The son, Armando Pasetti, came to America from Mantua in 1938 at the tender age of 14 and began learning the ropes of the business. When Volpi passed away in 1957, Pasetti became president of the successful company, Volpi Foods."

    8. Stroud, Jerri (1989-05-08). "Volpi Expands, Adds Salamis". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "John Volpi & Co. is moving into the supermarket age, introducing new products and consumer-sized packages for its traditional Italian meats, says Lorenza Pasetti, operations manager for the 87-year-old firm. In the last six to eight months, Volpi has brought out three new salamis that are being sold to supermarket"

    9. Negro, Linda (1997-01-12). "Proud residents tend to see the up side of life on The Hill". Evansville Press. Archived from the original on 2024-07-06. Retrieved 2024-07-06 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "John Volpi, who had perfected his recipe for Genoa salami in the basement of his home before opening the store in 1902, needed help for his growing business. He and his wife, who was the neighborhood midwife, didn't have children. ... Although the salami line has been expanded to include Gino, Napoli, Milano, Abruzzese and Filzette salami, the most popular is still the Genoa. To order it as long-time Hill residents do, just ask for a pound of Volpi's, and it will be sliced for you. The business is one of the top four specialty producers of salami and prosciutto in the United States, and it ships to customers around the world."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Volpi Foods to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:52, 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 11:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Growth Africa

[edit]
Green Growth Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. This is pure WP:ADMASQ. It is conceivable that GGA might be notable, but this is concealed behind a welter of lists formatted as prose and WP:BOMBARD. This is not the article to describe the organisation. As written and referenced fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:52, 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. For Redirect to be a valid alternative to deletion, there has to be a P&G-based consensus against a standalone article, which wasn't the case here. All the Delete/Redirect views were based on the fact that this director had only one released film, making Redirect an easy option. However, as all Keep views pointed out, the relevant notability guideline - WP:FILMMAKER - says nothing about the number of films, only about their notability, which suggests the easy option is not necessarily the right one. WP:TOOSOON is a useful essay, but it doesn't supercede our notability guidelines. And as some pointed out here, critical acclaim is irrelevant; critical attention matters, whether positive or not, but isn't required. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eashvar Karthic

[edit]
Eashvar Karthic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Main issue: the 2nd film of the director never released --> WP:TOOEARLY. This guy only directed one released film, not meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative professionals since the film received mixed reviews. The notabliity guidleine states that the director creates a "well-known work or collective body of work". As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. I don't know if a writeup by an assistant professor at American College, Madurai holds any weightage but that info can be added to Penguin, the director's only released film. The deletion was caused by an undo of a redirect to Penguin. Long sources are mainly direct interviews about Penguin, not independent. Acting roles seem minor and not notable.

If anybody who directs one film, gets an article, doesn't this set a bad precedent. The film didn't win a National Award or any award for that matter.

This source [62] talks about six films including Penguin, all of this information pertaining to Penguin should be moved to the film article. This director can be notable after more of his works release. DareshMohan (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you are wondering what the contents of source #7 is, it is here: [63] The story focuses on the pain and struggles suffered by the female lead. A pregnant woman remembers her child who went missing years ago. After the child’s missing, her husband started becoming toxic by saying she was the reason for the loss and separated ways from her. Later after years, a male character was shown who accepted her as she is and started living happily with her. No strong characterization or importance was given to both these male roles. They are just part of the screenplay.

That's just the plot of the film. How is it scholarly analysis? The assistant professor mentioned above [64] (page 100) is the only significant analysis but that is of the film and can be added to Penguin.

Just redirect to Penguin till Zebra (his second film) releases. DareshMohan (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:Actor and WP:Director. AmericanY (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)— AmericanY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: This seems like a bad-faith nomination and I believe you are upset about your friend, User:Monhiroe's autopatrolled rights being removed. You first edited this article on 8 October 2023, what changed your mind between then and 19 June, 2024, when you redirected it? Did it take eight months for you to judge its notability? On 19 June, you skimmed through all the articles I have ever created and made some changes on three of them [65][66][67]. Was it to check which ones you could nominate for deletion but couldn't find any, so you thought Eashvar Karthic was borderline because he had only one film and chose to redirect it? Is this how you get back at an editor who may have upset your friend?
The notice you have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force is not neutral and did not follow WP:APPNOTE. Is your nomination rationale so weak that you are trying to discredit a source simultaneously?
Notability
  • The main issue you have mentioned in you nomination rationale is countered by WP:FILMMAKER#3 where it explicitly mentions significant or well-known work. It need not be a collective body of work.
  • I believe the film receiving mixed reviews has no weightage here as we are not debating for WP:FILMMAKER#4c
  • As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. - Adding to my previous comments above, the film has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, which can be verified by checking Penguin (film).
  • Apart from the above, the film has been cited in journals for three completely different reasons: A film that discusses women-centric films, OTT during the COVID-19 pandemic and representation of the subaltern.
  • If you had taken the time to read through Source #7, you would have known that the PDF you have linked is another journal that has cited the original source #7's work. In the PDF you have linked, Penguin (film) was selected as one of the films out of all the other women-centric films that were released in 2020. The scholarly analysis is in the findings and conclusion section of the same PDF. The journal entry's objective is independent of the subject, so it's absurd to ask for an analysis about the film when the objective is different.
  • FWIW, here is another journal that extensively cites the subject's work.
There is significant coverage about the subject and their work. Penguin (film) has also received independent periodical articles, reviews and cited in multiple journals, thereby passing the WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jeraxmoira, I completely agree with you on the notability of this director and, like you, I do indeed disagree with DareshMohan's interpretation of the guideline in the present case, but is your very aggressive opening statement absolutely necessary? I am inviting you to kindly strike it. I don't think it's appropriate here, nor helpful. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any bad-faith nomination will be called out. My statement is true and the diffs/timeline make it clear, so it will not be struck out. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Penguin (film), his sole directorial credit. The sources in the article are based on the film and doesn't extensively describes/mention/discuss about his work. --Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article for Karthic's only released film, "Penguin." He's only directed one film. It got mixed reviews and needs more coverage. So, he still needs to meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. We must redirect the page to keep the relevant information about his directorial role in the film. This placement is better until he releases more work and meets notability standards.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AstridMitch, could you please explain your rationale on how the article fails to meet WP:FILMMAKER#3, to be precise, how it fails "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"?
    You have also mentioned the it needs for more coverage, but the film Penguin (film) has received more than five full length reviews and has been cited in over four journals. What, in your opinion, is sufficient coverage if not this? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Sajan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rizwan Sajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage. Indication of COI. See previous account creators are blocked. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:32, 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article and a weak deletion nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INFINITT Healthcare

[edit]
INFINITT Healthcare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub created by a paid account, seemingly no notability whatsoever. ahmetlii ✉ (Please ping me on a reply!) 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: As a public KOSDAQ company, coverage exists. This would appear to scrape notability for companies, but sourcing I could locate is way too dependent on press releases such as https://www.arabnews.com/ejada-and-infinitt-forge-health-care-links. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) - Weak keep CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs searches in the Korean language. Try googling "인피니트헬스"; you get much more results. [70][71][72][73][74][75] I am mindful of the fact that the page is tainted by a paid creator, but it doesn't read excessively complimentary to me on a quick glance. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and [6] are press release, [2] is about the CEO, and I have reservation on [3] and [4] as routine stock coverage. [5] is good and I did not see it before: changing my vote. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the article is short and incomplete I do believe the subject itself doesn't violet the notability guidelines for companies as it is a a public company with some coverage, but it should be improved and expanded. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 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! 05:17, 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 speedy delete‎ with subject / author's consent. Also this is a BLP and this discussion was going nowhere productive. If an editor believes a redirect would be helpful, that can be done outside this discussion. Star Mississippi 23:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Claesson

[edit]
Samuel Claesson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political candidate and author who made himself a Wikipedia page. Of the 6 articles cited on the page: 1 is the candidate list on the Alaska Divison of Elections website; one is a WP:ROTM article from Anchorage Daily News which has 1 sentence about Claesson; 1 is a page on "glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com" on which the only mention of Claesson is the inclusion of his book in a "recommended books" list; 1 is an article he wrote; 1 is a press release; and the final is a Los Angeles Times article by "Lawrence Graner" apparently written about him. Strangely enough, this article can't be found online, despite the fact that it was published in May 2023; the link in the citation leads to a paywalled Newspapers.com page, and I can't find any evidence that anyone by the name Lawrence Graner has ever written for the LA Times. Regardless, I don't think these cited articles are enough to determine notability; I can't find anything better on Google, and he doesn't seem to have any other claim to notability. I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started over 41 deletion discussions on Wikipedia, for politicians across the political spectrum. I guess that means my views don't align with literally any politician in existence. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP user has only ever made edits on this deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia account was created today. They have made 8 total edits, all on either Samuel Claesson's page or pages related to crime noir, which is the subject that Claesson writes about. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered doing "investigating" for yourself, Mr. IP user who is definitely not Samuel Claesson, you'd find that the page talked about in that article was deleted after numerous editors agreed that Manny Cid is not notable. The fact that you're spreading clearly bogus allegations from a random blogger shows how little credibility you have. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was this IP user's first ever edit. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in addition, your staatement about www.glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com not mentioning him as being the nephew of Dennis Crosby is inaccurate. I just looked at the page and it clearly states it. Please examine these pages before flagging them. 1.177.147.29 (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my mistake. There is indeed a single sentence on that page mentioning that Samuel Claesson accepted an award on someone's behalf. I fail to see how that helps prove he's notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another IP user who has only ever made edits on pages related to Samuel Claesson. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:YOURSELF and WP:AUTOPROB Samuelrclaesson has his own user page for this content. Even at that, there is nothing in this article that makes him notable enough for a separate article, even if a non-involved editor wrote it. — Maile (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As shown above, Samuel Claesson seems to have made multiple Wikipedia accounts to flood this discussion. He also left a threatening message on my talk page accusing me of being paid to delete Wikipedia accounts. His proof is a Facebook post from some random person who admits they "have no evidence of this." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A few things:
    1. I didn't make multiple accounts. That's a lie.
    2. I didn't leave a threatening message. That's a lie.
    3. There is a lot more evidence that he's being paid to do this stuff, including an article that someone else posted a link to above. There are similar allegations made against him by moderators on his 'talk' page.
    4. I'd advise people to look at BottleOfChocolateMilk's 'talk' page and see the countless allegations of fraud, unprofessionalism, and bias that he has.
    5. I'm under the impression that BottleOfChocolateMilk doesn't have any authority or power in his life, so he's using Wikipedia as an outlet to feel powerful. The purpose of Wikipedia -and I've made a lot of articles- is to provide knowledge, not to boost someone's ego and compensate for their insecurities. I don't hate BottleOfChocolateMilk, but I certainly pity him. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol, "someone else" posted the link. Sure. Please do us a favor and summarize the "evidence" in that article (there isn't any). If there's "a lot more evidence" then surely you should be able to produce something. Or you could just keep threatening to tell the admins on me, which would probably result in you getting banned, not me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never "threatened to tell the admins" anything. If you're gonna threaten to get me banned, you should at least be truthful. I merely said that your 'talk' page has dozens of complaints from editors about your conduct. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're trying to lie about this when anyone can look at my talk page (or this deletion discussion) and see what you said. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. No WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. Based on their editing behavior and behavior in this AfD, Samuelrclaesson should arguably be banned. Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looking only at the article itself and doing a quick WP:BEFORE search, this article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. Fails WP:NPOL and search shows no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. I think an SPI may also be warranted here; I agree it should be taken to ANI first though, which I may do soon if no one else does. On a bit of an unrelated note the content creator also seems to have made several other CoI creations. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to AllTheUsernamesAreInUse... He's only chiming in because he's colluding with BottleOfChocolateMilk. If you see BottleOfChocolateMilk's 'talk' page, he and AllTheUsernamesAreInUse joke about being paid by a politician to edit Wikipedia. I'll be submitting information to ANI tonight about this, as this is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to be managed... long-time donors like myself hate seeing wannabe vigilantes like the two aforementioned individuals using Wikipedia as a way to give themselves authority and accomplishment that they lack in the real world. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The secret is out...Mary Peltola paid me to make this deletion discussion. I also got paid to start the 41 other deletion discussions I've created on Wikipedia. It's not much, but it's honest work. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Colluding", lol...and yes, it's a running joke between us because it didn't happen in real life. And ouch, "to give themselves accomplishment that they lack in the real world", be careful about personal attacks there. But yes, submit it to ANI, that would be a sensible course of action; I've little interest in arguing here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've notified ANI since I wasn't sure if anyone else was going to. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the page creator has now requested deletion, this seems like a speedy delete. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the final is a Los Angeles Times article by "Lawrence Graner" apparently written about him. Strangely enough, this article can't be found online, despite the fact that it was published in May 2023; the link in the citation leads to a paywalled Newspapers.com page, and I can't find any evidence that anyone by the name Lawrence Graner has ever written for the LA Times I can see the newspaper article linked in the reference and it does not match the source definition (nor does it mention Claesson). If I go to the Los Angeles Times page/date specified in the source definition, there is no article about Claesson there. This appears to be a false source. Schazjmd (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source fraud? That's a new one. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to WP:AN/I

[edit]

That Samuelrclaesson should not have created Samuel Claesson is indisputable. But what I'm also seeing, are more serious allegations towards this editor. ANI requires evidence and diffs, not just accusations like we see on this page. BottleOfChocolateMilk you've made a lot of accusations, not the least of which is socking - i.e. creating multiple accounts. WP:AN/I is the place to sort this out, and where something can be done about any violations mentioned above. Longhornsg , if you believe the editor should be banned, then do something about it - don't just complain. Wikipedia:Banning policy will tell you how to put that process in motion. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll do the same. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 20:00, 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 no consensus‎. I don't think an additional relisting would bring us to a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing

[edit]
2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a news story, no significant coverage beyond news reporting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coverage was beyond routine in that it was analyzed in the pattern of something else (the Buddhist-Muslim conflict in Burma), however it fails WP:SUSTAINED so I feel like at most this should be merged somewhere. I can't think of where... PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:40, 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! 03:48, 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 programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!. Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kicko & Super Speedo

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kicko & Super Speedo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023. M S Hassan (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Green Gold Animations? Or to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different target articles proposed here for a possible Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 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 Earth Island Institute. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Youth Awards

[edit]
Brower Youth Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@208.58.205.56 I am not sure, personally I have no interest in fixing the article Mr Vili talk 06:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: As a response to @208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as Yale University ([[[81]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[82]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[83]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Earth Island Institute. The program seems fairly well-established and is a reasonable search term. However, the sources mentioned here and in the article itself each mostly focus on a single winner as a local human-interest story; sources that cover all of the winners of an award would be significant coverage of the event as opposed to the person, but that doesn't seem to be available here. The sources that don't fall into this category are just listings of scholarship information that seem more like database entries. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to LGBT rights in Kurdistan. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newroz clashes (2023)

[edit]
Newroz clashes (2023) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, local event only covered by Turkish media sources. Ecrusized (talk) 01:03, 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 merge‎ to Turks in Germany. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almancı

[edit]
Almancı (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible Wiki dictionary item, the term itself is brief enough to be merged with Turks in Germany. Ecrusized (talk) 00:44, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zygote Media Group

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Zygote Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm unsure why the last AfD nom was speedy closed by a non-admin, but there is a distinct lack of sourcing for this item. It's been tagged since 2006 and has not improved. I find nothing about this group other than the Google Body app that was taken over by them when Google discontinued it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 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! 00:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamokemalism

[edit]
Islamokemalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringe term only cited by a few Turkish news reports. Uncertain whether such an ideology exists or whether it is term coined by a few news websites. Ecrusized (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the former state ideology is just “a term coined by a few news websites”. Have it your way. You are on a rampage of nominating my Turkish topic articles for deletion after making the bold accusation that I am “trying to make the Turkish government look bad”. Engaging you is not worth my time as you make it clear from your statements that you are too emotional. I won’t participate in the discussions, whatever the admins decide I’ll take it and won’t argue. Next time you go on another nomination spree, let me know. I had no idea until I did my routine article check. Ilamxan (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article title can be discussed, but the article should kept, unless there is a good merge proposal. The references in the article include mainstream news outlets or notable columnists, all discussing a coherent theme around the marriage of Kemalist and Islamist ideologies.
TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the article does make a decent case and cites a couple of mainstream sources. I think it is notable enough. Brat Forelli🦊 22:32, 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! 00:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finley Jeffrey

[edit]
Finley Jeffrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by user with COI. Immediately PRODed, but unPRODed by same user with no explanation. BLP has many "citation needed" tags and the only two citations present do not appear to be independent and reliable. Subject shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:31, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Miner

[edit]
Jeremy Miner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prior efforts to remove a large volume of promotional materials reveal how much of a nothing-burger this page on an American sales speaker is. There is no significant coverage and much promotional material, and it almost merits speedy deletion. It turned up on my radar because it received 7,000 views in June despite being an orphan. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:24, 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 Speedy Keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zygote Media Group

[edit]
Zygote Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of coverage discussing the company in-depth. The best I could find through multiple searches was a couple of sentences at [[89]] and [[90]], nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A 2006 PROD was removed by the since blocked User:Zygote Media Group so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 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.

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search