Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 29	July 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Michael Lodge[edit]

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

WP:BLP about the leader of an organization, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for leaders of organizations. As always, just having a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but the content here is strictly on the level of "he is a person who has a job, the end", with absolutely no content about any specific things he did in the job, and the "referencing" consists entirely of his primary source staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage about his work in media or books. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out the sources added by Uhooep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources available. They give significant coverage and are from reliable sources. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ninovium[edit]

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

This is a content fork of Oganesson#Unconfirmed iscovery claims and isotopes of oganesson#Cold fusion, and there is no evidence in any reliable sources of "ninovium" being proposed as a name. Given said lack of sourcing for the name, I propose it be deleted outright, but a case could be made for a plausible redirect. ^Complex/_Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Complex/_Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no results for 'ninovium' in google scholar, and just one in google books. Not sure that redirect is needed. Artem.G (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, The topic seems to be distinct enough from Oganesson to warrant its own page. The page should instead be renamed to something more on-topic (1999 Oganesson hoax?), as the name Ninovium does not appear in any contemporary sources. TheWikipedianSheep (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge & redirect to Victor Ninov.TheLongTone (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow-collar worker[edit]

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

The only research article cited uses "Rainbow-Collar Jobs" in the title, but does not define it in the article itself. The terms appears to be more of a title hook than an actual defined concept, and a quick WP:BEFORE couldn't bring up any other article using that term. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Plains Wombats[edit]

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

Redirect to USA Rugby League as I am unable to find enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. My searches only yielded passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's reasons. Mn1548 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SBSS 0953+549[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable astronomical object, and the article itself is rather incoherent. All of the references but one are to catalog papers, and that one is a study of three quasars in 1986. The text is not well formed English, it has sections irrelevant to the article itself (Galaxy companions is about galaxies that have nothing to do with SBSS 0953+549 except vague proximity on sky), and the text is mostly generalities based on those catalog papers. User:Galaxybeing continues to create pages like this that are non-notable and just lists of information from catalogs in paragraph form. Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, this appears to be a discussion of data entries from various surveys. 2-3 million of these objects have been discovered, so they are a dime a dozen. I couldn't find any substantial coverage, and there's nothing to distinguish this quasar in some way so that we could add it to List of quasars. Praemonitus (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This quasar has been the subject of at least two studies [1][2], and there is also some commentary here [3]. These are enough to fullfil the criteria. --C messier (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay. Perhaps then it should be renamed "SBS 0953+549" since that gets more ghits? Praemonitus (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure which is the more common abbreviation. The publications suggest SBS but simbad say it is SBSS. C messier (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two papers with 9 total citations does not make an object notable. If the only non-survey papers about this are from 30 or 50 years ago, it's not that interesting; essentially all of the text on the new page is summaries of catalog information. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time restriction in the WP:NASTCRIT for the non-trivial published works which contain significant commentary on the object, as per WP:NTEMP. C messier (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on checking references in NED, this quasar doesn't really have enough significant coverage for it to be notable. It's listed in a lot of catalog papers and studies of quasar samples, but as an individual object I don't see evidence of notability. More generally, there's an issue that User:Galaxybeing has been creating a lot of articles on galaxies and quasars that have very low or marginal notability, and I would argue for deleting most or all of these articles based on low notability and poor quality of information content. I understand that these articles are being created in good faith and it looks like a lot of effort is going into them, but they are in general articles on objects of very low or marginal notability, and in terms of the content of the articles, the information quality is very poor overall. These articles include numerous factual errors, irrelevant details, and statements that are written so confusingly as to have no useful meaning. In this particular article on SBSS 0953 there are whole sentences and paragraphs in the article that just don't make any sense, and scientific terminology is used incorrectly and/or without any context or explanation in a way that isn't appropriate for a WP article. Unfortunately that is the case for many other articles created by this author. Aldebarium (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This quasar is notable. I've found one reference which is https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/309595/fulltext/5194.text.html. This mentions a bit more information of the object since it is of special interest mainly its spectrum shows three strong absorption systems from intervening gas clouds at various redshifts and this the info I left out in the first place. Rather than deleting it altogether as I see it a step backwards, I suggest this article can be improved instead. Also I support changing the title to SBS 0953+549 to reflect the name mentioned in research papers. Galaxybeing (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That paper was published nearly 30 years ago, and is not really about the quasar itself but instead is about a different galaxy discovered because of its proximity to the quasar on the sky. According to ADS it has been cited 27 times (including citations in non-refereed sources), and by my count, 11 of those citations are self-citations by the authors, leaving just 16 non-self citations in all that time. And, the most recent citation to that paper was more than a decade ago. There has been little or no follow-up work on this galaxy at redshift 2.5 since it was discovered 3 decades ago, and it is evidently not an object of any current or recent research interest. This all gives evidence of a lack of notability. Back in the mid 1990s finding a single galaxy at redshift 2.5 was still interesting enough to publish a paper about it (although this particular paper has not been a highly cited or influential paper), but by today's standards in the field of galaxy evolution this would not be considered notable at all, and nobody would still use the term "protogalaxy" to describe an object at redshift 2.5 any more. Moreover, this paper is not about the quasar itself, it is about a galaxy that was found because it just happens to be close to the quasar in projection on the sky. Today there are vast numbers of quasars known in this redshift range, and by today's standards, the fact that a galaxy was discovered next to a quasar is not in itself sufficiently interesting or notable to justify a WP article about the quasar. Aldebarium (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. from WP:NTEMP. C messier (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just I don't see how two papers with very few citations count as "significant coverage". NASTRO states "multiple non-trivial published works", which isn't really satisfied here. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These two papers, published in peer reviewed journals offer significant commentary on the object, that is what significant coverage is about. There is no indication in the policies that the peer reviewed papers have to have over an arbitrary number of citations to be considered for notability. As for multiple, it is defined more than one [4], which is the case here. C messier (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these papers count as "coverage", but I do not think that they count as "significant coverage" for purposes of notability. Finding a tiny number of examples of basically forgotten papers from decades ago, that have had extremely few citations and no demonstrable research impact, is not what I would call "significant" coverage. Even if there's no specific threshold for number of papers or number of citations, the situation here is that the numbers are extremely low by any standard, and there's no evidence that this is an object of any particular interest relative to the hundreds of thousands of other quasars known with basically similar properties. Aldebarium (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most other quasars haven't even been the subject of a dedicated to them paper so this differs, even if there is little research interest after the 90s. These papers address the topic directly and in detail, as per WP:SIGCOV, being sertainly more than a trivial mention in a table. C messier (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there are at least a quarter million quasars with intervening absorption systems from eBOSS alone (see Bloomqvist et al. 2019, so that's definitely not adding any notability. Galaxybeing: can you help us understand how you picked the objects you picked to make articles for, and how you go about finding sources and writing articles for them? You say above "I've found one reference...", but that reference is already in the article. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources don't align with the article's main topic. For instance, ^[1] does not explicitly state what SBSS 0953+549, or whatever it is. If you look at the other sources, you can see that it's just too complicated and unable to be read, and you can't even think about what the information is about because all of the refs are clumped up together, leading to nowhere. Also, I'm noticing that the refs come from one website with all of the information, so it's practically citing one page to cover the whole article and writing multiple paragraphs that don't have a conclusion.

Comment: I was thinking about redirecting SBSS 0953+549 to List of quasars as SBS 0953+549 since in my opinion, it isn't notable to guarantee its own article since coverage isn't significant enough but it does have a bit of into just to make it a mention as part of the list. That is what I'm hoping for an alternative to deletion. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing to distinguish this quasar from the roughly million other quasars that are known (e.g. MILLIQUAS. A redirect makes sense if the object has at least some vague notability, but it doesn't. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William Lascelles[edit]

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

British official (not that Lascelles). It is not clear how he might meet WP:BIO. His position as Clerk of the House of Lords was an administrative one and does not confer automatic notability. Nothing in his unremarkable biography otherwise suggests notability. The cited sources appear to be mostly primary or unreliable sources, and a Google Books search finds nothing of interest. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud. Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1. This deletionism is frankly getting silly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holding an "important" post (or rather, an administrative role in the politically unimportant house of the legislature) does not, by itself, establish notability. GNG does, which requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which you do not cite. As to ANYBIO, being knighted is, as I understand it, pretty much automatic at that level of administrative seniority (cf. "Sir Humphrey"); notably, the article does not imply that he obtained the award for any particular achievement. And receiving a title is only an indicator that a person is likely notable, not that they are guaranteed inclusion. If we do not have substantial secondary sources, we have no basis for an article. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "achievement" for which he received his knighthood was being appointed to the post. Why do you think people receive high awards? Because they distinguish themselves in their chosen field. Which he clearly did. The House of Lords is not "the politically unimportant house of the legislature"! It is one of the two houses of the legislature and its clerk is no less important than that of the House of Commons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Lords, like the monarch, is now an essentially decorative feature of the British constitution. Political power lies in the House of Commons. In any case, since the post of clerk does not come with automatic notability under our rules, neither does a title awarded merely for becoming clerk. Sandstein 12:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly do not understand the concept of being honoured for reaching the top of one's chosen profession. It's no different from any other knight. Sir Ian McKellen, for instance, has also been knighted for reaching the top of his profession. The difference is simply that his profession is high-profile and that of a parliamentary official is not (or, at least, not to the general populace or those who write on the internet - although given he died in 1979 even that wouldn't be relevant). Neither is any more or less notable within their profession. And that's what we should be looking at if we don't want to further degenerate from a genuine encyclopaedia to a catalogue of pop culture, as we sadly appear to rapidly be doing. That's one of the reasons for the existence of WP:ANYBIO #1 - to catch people who are not high-profile but still notable enough to receive high honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayward Realms[edit]

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

The game has only recently launched a Kickstarter and while there seems to be a bunch of positive press about the potential of this eventual game, that does not mean that it will actually happen (a bit of WP:CRYSTAL combined with the unsure nature of Kickstarter campaigns). I'm not necessarily advocating deletion outright, but I also do not think this should have been accepted from the Draft space (new reviewer etc etc) and should be returned there until it's actually released. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEXIST. There are a lot more PCGamesN articles, GamesRadar+ and GameStar, just to name a few. It's true that the article is poorly sourced, and I agree that it should not have been accepted, but now that it's in article space, these problems are surmountable by the proper cleanup and editing. Simply being a bad article accept should not be cause for deletion, that should be on the reviewer to own up to their mistake. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's clearly enough coverage to make it significant, not to mention the team is made up of industry veterans instead of newcomers. But yes, the sources really should be cleaned up. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Ocheretny[edit]

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

notable only from a single event, his marriage to Putin's ex-wife; WP:BLP1E applies Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argument in favor of keeping the article:

- I found this deletion request because I was interested in learning more about Ocheretny, I presume others may also be interested Blaadjes (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally submitted before I was done, sorry, new to this!

Another reason:

He has been investigated and had properties seized, possibly he and his wife receive millions of dollars from Putin, which might make him more interesting to the public. The article could use some work, but I think it should stay. Blaadjes (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

even the article you linked says that he's notable only because of his marriage: A villa belonging to Russian national Artur Ocheretny, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife's new husband. Artem.G (talk) 12:30, 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!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to page Lyudmila Putina. He is not notable by himself. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny. Procyon117 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Calic[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Serbian rugby league footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, France, and Serbia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese BASIC[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. I could not find any reliable source. Mfixerer (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Chinese Basic". Australian Personal Computer. Vol. 3, no. 11. November 1982. p. 11. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Chinese Basic. The hieroglyphics shown here are actually standard Basic code, displayed in Chinese, and the product which produces them has been launched by Multitech Industrial Corporation in the Chinese island of Taiwan. Originally produced to help Taiwanese (who didn't speak English) to learn Basic programming, the product is now being sold to other non-English speaking peoples—or to English-speaking computer builders who wish to sell to them."
2. Zhao, Rong-Yao; Pu, Hao-Zhe (1976). "Development of a Chinese BASIC compiler". Proceedings of the National Computer Symposium of the Republic of China 1976. National Taiwan University.
  The citation is listed here.
3. Stefans, Brian Kim (2017). Word Toys: Poetry and Technics. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-0-8173-5895-2. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Even before the advent of esolangs, attempts were made to create programming languages in Chinese and other Asian languages. Notable is Chinese BASIC, invented in the early eighties, which permitted within the same program Chinese ideograms, English letters, and abbreviated commands (such as “?” for “PRINT”). Inputting Chinese into a keyboard is something of a science in itself, as elements of ideograms, such as the radical or a geometric element (the shape of a box, for example) of characters related by a complex set of "decomposition rules" have to be mapped out over a QWERTY keyboard. Cangjie is based on the graphological aspect of the characters: each graphical unit is represented by a character component, twenty-four in all, each mapped to a particular letter key on a standard QWERTY keyboard. An additional “difficult character" function is mapped to the X key."
4. Lee, Jinn-Bao (1982). A Curriculum Model for Computer Literacy in Taiwan (PhD thesis). Texas A&M University. ProQuest 303265003.
  The PhD thesis notes: "As to the type of programming languages for the computer literacy instruction, Chinese BASIC was most frequently recommended by the high school principals while English BASIC was suggested by a majority of both the department heads and the industrialists. Other languages were recommended less frequently."
5. "伙計中文培基語言來啦" [Mate, Chinese BASIC language is coming]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). 1987-10-24. p. 10.
  The article notes: "找國第一套中文培基語言已由經智資訊公司開發成功，這套命名為伙計的中文培基語言，可直接用中文使用，對學習程式相當方便，將有助於國內資訊教育的推廣。"
  From Google Translate: "The country's first set of Chinese BASIC languages has been successfully developed by Jingzhi Information Company. This set of Chinese training languages named Buddy can be used directly in Chinese. It is very convenient for learning programs and will contribute to the promotion of domestic information education."
6. "廣智產多項套裝軟體分依特性擬人化命名" [Guangzhi produces multiple software packages. Anthropomorphic naming based on characteristics]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). 1989-03-06. p. 24.
  The article notes: "「伙計」是第一套中文培基直譯器（BASIC Interpreter），擁有GW-BASIC完全相容的標準功能，並增加賀克（Hercules）卡繪圖能力，提供真正的中文使用環境。"
  From Google Translate: ""Buddy" is the first set of Chinese BASIC Interpreter, which has standard functions that are fully compatible with GW-BASIC, and adds Hercules card drawing capabilities, providing a true Chinese usage environment."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chinese BASIC (Chinese: 中文培基) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard's sources, especially the two theses. Fulfills GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the Freedom of Nations![edit]

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

There is little to indicate that this one-time 2024 event has notability. There is a lot of sourcing but little of it is reliable. Of the few RS that are cited, they make off-hand one-sentence mentions of this event or they explain the insignificance of the event. thena (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the cited sources may have a pro-Russia slant, but it also cites some directly critical sources under "criticism" and just looking it up on google I also found this bit of sigcov from a more generally anti-Western Turkish source; ONEEVENT is certainly a concern but it is also possible the sources required are simply spread out over many different languages that we only need more time and input to compile. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The European Council on Foreign Relations citation seems perfectly admissible for GNG in particular. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:SUSTAINED. Plenty of one-time conferences have gained sustained notability (e.g., the Bandung Conference), but this article does not qualify. - Amigao (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple sources available which indicates that it meets WP:GNG. The only issue with the article is WP:Toosoon but this will not affect the article because it is a multinational inter-party movement and it is not likely to die down soon, will rather gather more momentum. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its sources almost entirely fail the crucial point of "Independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. See WP:TASS for example. - Amigao (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Campbell Children's Theatre[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage, and none is in the article. A prod was removed in 2013. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmudul Hasan Gunovi[edit]

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

Suspected terrorist fails WP:GNG. No coverage beyond arrest. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Coverage does not transcend his arrest. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hasan Osama[edit]

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

Suspected terrorist, with no claims to notability and sourcing does not indicate passing WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiqul Islam Madani[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG & WP:NPOL Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round[edit]

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

Having checked through per WP:BEFORE, significant coverages (WP:SIGCOV) are rather poor for most 2nd and below tier formula classes given the reason for this nominations. Sources consists of almost entirely of WP:PRIMARY. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a sportsheet for the most ardent of fans (WP:NOTSTATS), whom anything less than first tier formula classes appeals to. WP:AFD will be a redirect or merge to 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship (edit) and 2024 FIA Formula 2 Championship.

I am also nominating the following related pages for this same reason with more to be added in:

Further additions for this same reason above):

SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - It's standard practice to routinely split out individual races from their parent (season) article. This keeps the parent article (in this case 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship) readable. Your suggestion to merge, while also being a full admittance that there is notable content here, would cause the parent article to be far too cluttered. WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE once again apply here. ~~"...whom anything less than first tier formula classes appeals to." That is your personal opinion and one which quite obviously has a lot of disagreement.~~ ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, suggesting 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship as an ATD for the F2 races you bundled in is pure nonsense. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What about WP:NOTSTATS? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election were moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election)." This language seems to support the splitting of these individual races. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I wouldn't have minded them to exist if reliable third party sources exists to back them up, but no, we get sources consisting of mainly WP:PRIMARY or nothing and do we need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of sports results to clutter Wikipedia with, especially those the most ardent minority of nerds bother with. There's always a home for them in Fandom. Nothing wrong with that site, though. People should think before shoving junk into Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  But you're not understanding that these are not standalone articles; their notability is established through sources which exist in the main article including Formula Scout and Autosport. The personal aspects of your rationale also really needs to stop, posthaste. Personal attacks like calling people "nerds" and calling their efforts "junk" are part of what got you sent to ANI before. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The statistics "split off" (they weren't split, these article were created separately) are not actually significant. The only significant results of feeder series are the championship results, which are already included on the relevant season article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  "(they weren't split, ...)" - Yes they were; the initial versions of these pages were redirects to the main article created by MaxLikesStuff, created out of WP:REDLINKS at the redirect target. Radioactive39 then converted these redirects into sub-articles in order to add content rather than add it to the main article and clutter it up. The stats in these sub-articles are summarized in the main article. There is nothing in NOTSTATS which indicates that these sub-articles are in violation of it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Saudi Arabia, France, Italy, Spain, and Australia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Formula One is the top tier of the sport and one of the (if not the single) most prestigious category in motorsport as a whole. The F1 equivalent pages to the ones included in this nomination, using this article as an example, contain little more additional information. Reading WP:NOTSTATS, the only thing these pages are missing is a little more summarised information. The nominated pages display the information in clear, concise tables and they provide information that is not available in the main season articles (2024 Formula 2 Championship and 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship) and add context to the relevant motorsport championship. Romero13 (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fandom are always there for fans like you. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. These are not standalone articles — if you nominate these few you should go all the way back to 2004 and list all rounds of previous F3000, GP2, Formula 2, GP3 and Formula 3 seasons. But as much as some lack sufficient prose, all are notable individually and WP:SECONDARY coverage exists. Nominator also gets a WP:TROUT for their uncivil comments. MSport1005 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But as much as some lack sufficient prose..." I noticed that 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship does have summaries of the races in its prose, in line with the above-quoted section of WP:NOTSTATS which I opine supports our keep !votes. This is the exact standard which I believe we strive for on Wikipedia as a whole; SUMMARY-style prose in the main article, stats tables split out into their own sub-articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. They aren't independently after all. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mehelich[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5. I created this stub in July 2020, when playing in the NFL created a presumption of notability. (Mehelich appeared in eight games as a guard for the Red Jackets in 1929.) Under current guidelines, there is no longer a presumption. I have searched extensively for WP:SIGCOV and came up empty. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could be redirected to 1929 Minneapolis Red Jackets season, then, but for some reason he is not mentioned there. Adding him could bolster the squad list in the article, which needs references, players' age during the 1929 season, and matches played during that season. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He played in eight games (starting half). The team only played 10 games that year. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in the NFL (especially in the 1920s) is no longer a basis for notability. I've searched extensively for SIGCOV and came up empty. Cbl62 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1929 Minneapolis Red Jackets season: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG at this time. A redirect makes sense as a WP:ATD. I've gone ahead and listed Mehelich on the roster there. Let'srun (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of German scientists[edit]

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

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens of thousands of entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), and even better-defined sublists such as List of German chemists, there is no need for this overarching uncurated list. Broc (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science, Lists, and Germany. Broc (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. To be even minimally useful such a list would need to include dates and sub-fields, but even if it had those delete would be the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Leal (influencer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an "influencer", not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria for internet personalities. The only attempted claim of notability here is that he exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself, and the article is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not one bit of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform, and simply existing as a self-appointed "influencer" is not inherently notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Brazil. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetted officer (India)[edit]

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

Nominated by IP 117.230.88.202 as follows: Not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", hence fails WP:GNG. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as listing all gazetted designations are NOT within the scope of an encyclopedic article as it is not a directory or manual. The article predominantly consists original research, with references that barely support it. Legodesk.com fails WP:RS. (end quote) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all sources available through here.--Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Legodesk is not the only citation of this article. There are several references/citations which are indefinitely reliable like : The Hindu, "Indian Laws" Several Official Government of India website(s), Website of Directorate of Printing, Gov of India, Other prominent news/media like Amar Ujala, The Indian Express, etc. Deleting this article would be a big loss to the encyclopedia because Gazetted officers are the officers due to whom the whole country INDIA, works in a systematic manner.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are gazetted officers for the United Kingdom as well, but I haven't come across any articles on them. It is a content fork of The Gazette of India, where it can be mentioned, and does not justify WP:SIZESPLIT. Other than a dictionary definition, there's no other content encyclopedic to be added. The so-called reliable references are either passing mentions or run-of-the-mill news reports about a single news (eg: JCO). No other "independent sources". The subject definitely lacks WP:SIGCOV, depth of coverage, and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--2409:4073:314:4414:2885:8BF:F6E1:1901 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there are specific pages on Gazetted officer of Kenya and Sri Lanka. There are many reliable references in this article as well.!! TheProEditor11 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh[edit]

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

The author challenged the draftification done by Zinnober9. Based on my check, I don’t think the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or any other notability criteria. I looked for reliable sources but did not find any. If anyone finds sources in Hindi or other languages, you are welcome to share them here. His books are also not notable. In my opinion, there is no need for draftification anymore. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, India, and Bihar. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here. Sources are just poor and unreliable such as using Wikipedia Commons to source on his early life and education. The author's achievement is not significant or noteworthy to satisfy notability and to warrant a page on this subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. RangersRus (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my rudimentary findings, this person does not meet WP:GNG as there is little to no coverage of the author, and my impression of most of the sources existing in this article/draft were from this author's works; which is problematic for reliably sourcing any claims or facts stated within. I realize that there could be reliable sources in Hindi that would support this draft, but I do not know Hindi, and I am not personally interested in this subject. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As someone who made a few edits on the article, I was debating between moving it back to draft or bringing it to AfD, but since it's been brought to AfD already, I'll cast my vote. Also note that this link here of one of his works listed on the page is nominated for deletion due to possible copyvio and false rationale for uploading (i.e. not own work). Procyon117 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Santa (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM as release date not announced. Existing sources are nowhere than procedural announcements only. WP:DRAFTIFY should be the better option. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has been accepted through AfC. Filming has started. Even if this is never released, cast and director are extremely notable and most of all, coverage presented in the page or existing online is sufficient to satisfy the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003)[edit]

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

Subject person played only 1 List-A and 2 First class match. Does WP:GNG surpasses WP:NCRICK? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990: - can I just point out NSPORT states that "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline...) - so all NSPORT is saying that people who meet those criteria are considered notable, but not meeting those criteria doesn't automatically make them non-notable. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Air Baptist Church[edit]

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

Has remained exclusively sourced to primary sources for over six months despite a tag. A quick BEFORE search yielded no information beyond non-independent or non-reliable mentions. Looks like a local church without notability. Potential as a merge is minimal, as content is all primary and fails NPOV. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Virginia. Pbritti (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES; other searching turns up only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

77 Armoured Engineer Squadron[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. No references are provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Book Store[edit]

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

Despite the number of sources, I'm failing to see how it being the last second-hand bookstore on Orchard Road makes it notable for a Wikipedia article. Article seems pretty trivial to me. Procyon117 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Procyon117 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete:Regardless of how trivial this article may be. I’m of the opinion, that any topic which has a descent amount of sources covering it is deserving of a Wikipedia page, as for this article which I have written, the citations are well distributed and there are a good number of references, so I don’t really see the issue, here. Stewmuhn (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web chat[edit]

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

None of the three sources are proper and the article has been like that since 2014, according to the verification needed tag placed at the top. I propose deleting the article or moving to draft space until it is significantly improved. Ae245 (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ae245 (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swat lynching incident[edit]

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

Horrible and highly condemnable incident but fails NEVENT. WP is not newspaper. Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the content into List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan to ensure that editors' efforts are not wasted. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan, per @Saqib's comment. Incident isn't WP:N enough to warrant an article. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. I mean it was already so in theory it can be redirected but, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as per the above recomendation I do agree with the nominator's concern.223.123.10.196 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - There is a continued coverage about the incident. see. Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) — Mfarazbaig (talk · contribs) is a confirmed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{2}}}|sock puppet]] of [{{canonicalurl:User:{{{2}}}}} {{{2}}}] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]). [reply]
- Mfarazbaig, OK but WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE also states coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge If the continued coverage is in some way transformative, as with Murder of Ahmaud Arbery, then a separate article might be merited. Is there a connection between this incident and larger social forces in Pakistan? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Square 9 Softworks[edit]

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

PRODed this one four years ago. Recreated by the company's marketing officer. Still fails the notability guidelines for companies. – Teratix ₵ 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Connecticut. – Teratix ₵ 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any notability of it. Only article I can find that even mentions it is this which I doubt is reliable enough for inclusion. Half the websites I find upon Googling it are just review websites. Procyon117 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus ineligible as a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:TRADES, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, or otherwise fail the tests of eligibility under WP:ORGTRIV. Nothing comes up in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiboy (gamer)[edit]

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

Obviously fails GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has sources, and searching for this guy brings up a few more (e.g. 1 2 3). The names pops up in dozens of articles, most of them in Indonesian, and while I don't think that those are all pristine sources, "Obviously fails GNG" would only be a valid complaint if there were no sources at all.

Excuse you? the three sources you've given are not reliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources would not be sufficient. I'd recommend looking more into things listed as reliable at WP:VG/S or WP:RSP. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sites list few to no Indonesian sources, so they aren't very helpful here. Also, reliability doesn't require a source to be listed there. Cortador (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest otherwise. But this is a WP:BLP. It requires sourcing stronger than a few obscure video game blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribun Network - which is currently cited twice in the article - is a mainstream Indonesian news outlet. What gave you the impression that is is a "video game blog"? Cortador (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the three sources you (or whoever it was who failed to sign their own comment) presented in the actual discussion. The ones with names like "Oneesports", "VCgamers", and "Duniagames". Those are the ones that sound like low-level gaming blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you dismiss them based on the name alone then? Cortador (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I evaluated them. You have an awful lot of (bad faith?) questions for someone who never even bothered to advance an argument for their reliability in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no base assumption of unreliability for sources. Also, do me a favour and don't accuse me of arguing in bad faith when you are the one dismissing sources based on what their name sounds like. Cortador (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying this as if that was self-evident. Can you read Indonesian? If so, what makes see these sources - or any others you should have found during WP:BEFORE - unreliable? Just declaring that anything on this guy is unreliable isn't sufficient Cortador (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not promotion, and a name popping up in a few places is insufficient for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4223[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3625[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3275[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. Also the info about the supernova discovered are trivial too, based on databases. C messier (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3246[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Self published book by an author who has paid many editors for his and its inclusion in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBOOK, this is WP:ADMASQ and part of a walled garden of self promotion. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3038[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Kozák[edit]

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

Miroslav Kozák, a Slovak men's footballer, last played football in 2009 before disappearing. References are terribly-formatted: secondary ones listed are routine football transfers (e.g. SME) and stories regarding his club appearances use database, the latter of which is obviously unacceptable per WP:BASIC. My Google searches showed nothing relevant besides silly, random namesakes. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination does not make sense to me. Formatting of references is irrelevant in an AFD. It's not disallowed or even discouraged to "use a database". WP:BASIC is not an issue here, and the sources currently numbered 7, 8, 9 and 10 are significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, See Geschichte's comment above. In addition, he definitely has offline sources, having had comprehensive pro career in early 2000s including a few seasons in the Slovak top flight, stints in theCzech top flight and Hungariuan top flight as well as Iranian pro leagues. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources show significant coverage? Giant Snowman 16:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Geschichte's comment above. Nonsensical nomination. Clearly also meets WP:BASIC. In addition, he definitely has offline sources, having had comprehensive pro career in early 2000s including a few seasons in the Slovak top flight, stints in theCzech top flight and Hungariuan top flight as well as Iranian pro leagues. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mamokgaase Senyatsi[edit]

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

There is no WP:SIGCOV cited in the article and I found none in a search. WP:SPORTBASIC is very clear when stating that routine coverage in match reports is not enough for an article. I found Idiski Times and Thami Soccer which are just more examples of trivial coverage from match reports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability tagger. I guess this is closer to fancruft than to a topic that gets significant in-depth coverage. Geschichte (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list is the most egregious example of OR and synth that I ever saw here. "Population figures are the current values, and the number of laureates is given per 10 million." - why should it be? How a population of today's Hungary relevant for Nobel prizes won by people who were born in 19th or early 20th centuries? (The problem is the same for all countries, the example is about Hungary because out of few refs in this list multiple are about Hungarians.) How does EU have 247 Nobel prizes? Surely people who were born and dead long before EU was created shouldn't count. And like that, the whole list is unsourced OR that should be deleted. Artem.G (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Science, and Lists. Artem.G (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using "current values" and then only using 2018 figures doesn't make sense either. If the values are current why not just use the most recent population value available? 14 October 2019 also seems like an arbitrary cutoff date, especially when there's a column for "Laureates in last 10 years (2014-2023)". If the article is going to be kept it should at least be semi-regularly updated properly. Procyon117 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but even the updated data would make little sense - why should a population of a modern country be used? Population changed a lot in the last hundred years, but this list divides modern population by historical number of Nobel prize winners. Modern Hungary is not Austria-Hungary, with very different population. No serious source use such numbers, that's a pure OR. Artem.G (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's also definitely an issue. Procyon117 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Nobel laureates by country. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly do you propose to merge? The whole list is unsourced and OR. Artem.G (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is basic division, not original research. These are not baseless claims that others cannot easily replicate. You can quibble about grouping EU countries, but it's not a basis for deletion. In any case someone has already merged some numbers to List of Nobel laureates by country, so that can be completed, with discussion as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well, by that logic you can divide current Egyptian population by the number of pharaohs and get 15.77 pharaohs per 10 millions modern Egyptians. No sources, no OR, just division. Artem.G (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the table in List of Nobel laureates by country#Summary is even worse, no sources, no population numbers or years, just mindless division... Artem.G (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need coverage on pharaohs per capita, but yes, you could put that simple division in an article with a specific source and it would not be original research. Reywas92^Talk 17:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely nonsensical. WP:CALC says that Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. How on Earth could it possibly be a meaningful reflection of the sources? It's not even a meaningful figure—the modern-day country of Egypt is not the same political entity as the one(s) that had pharaohs, and it makes no sense to use the population of the former to calculate a population density that relates strictly to the latter. If anything, what would make sense for these kinds of calculations would be to use the cumulative population, not any instantanteous one. TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete: to List of Nobel laureates by country. Per 10 million people is a user-generated statistic -- it may be basic division, but its selection was made by the judgement of a user, which is in the direction of original research. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is still basic arithmetic (WP:CALC), presenting it this way rather than per 1 million people doesn't mean it's original research. This is the most mundane "selection", and even if some source uses a different base it may still be an appropriate way to present the number. You can argue this isn't a notable topic as a whole that needs a standalone article, but simple, routine calculations anyone can replicate without complex formulae are not forbidden, regardless how displayed. Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point on "basic arithmetic", but maybe you can tell me why such calculation makes sense? why should a Nobel prize winner, who was born and died 70 years ago (a hypothetical example), be used in a calculation of how many Nobel prize winners per capita are in a modern country with compeltely different population? Is there any reliable source that gives such statistics? This (now dead) BBC article is used in that list, but even BBC didn't divide number of Nobel prize winners by modern population. Artem.G (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:NOR with a dose of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Yes, the arithmetic may be trivial, but the choice of which numbers to do arithmetic upon takes this outside what policy can support. WP:CALC does not justify this. The prototypical case for applying WP:CALC is taking a figure that a source reports in miles and converting that to kilometres. This isn't that. XOR'easter (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Against Nature (band)[edit]

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

OK, let's see what has happened here.

This article was created in 2007 by Nothingagainst
The Sputnikmusic website tells us that it was a side-project of the band Revelation, and went on to release a number of albums and EPs under the "Against Nature" name.
Encyclopaedia Metallum tells us pretty much the same

Given this article's long existence on en.wp, perhaps an articles for deletion discussion might be preferable to outright speedy deletion? Please do note that I am not suggesting Sputnikmusic and Encyclopaedia Metallum are reliable sources, but they possibly hint at some possibility of a "keep" or "redirect" outcome here. That said, my !vote is: fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND and any number of other policies and guidelines. Let's see what happens. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd suggest to merge this article with that of Revelation, but 1) that article already mentions Against Nature 2) the Revelation article is also unsourced, and 3) "Revelation" is a terrible term to search for because it's not generic. Leaning delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Revelation (band). This is an odd story, as it looks like Revelation temporarily changed their name to Against Nature then changed it back, possibly due to contractual problems forcing them to self-release new material under a different name. This article's text about how Against Nature formed is largely taken from this uncited source: [5]. They soon relaunched Revelation, and Against Nature achieved little notability as a stand-alone act, so the whole temporary hiccup in their history can be described briefly at Revelation's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pageau[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable religious leader and speaker. Fails WP:GNG. Sources are self-published and opinion piece. No actual WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Canada. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we can agree that Jonathan Pageau is not world famous. At all. However within a specialist sphere of religious communities interested in orthodox and catholic art, as seen by treatments in various religious journals, the artist has received significant coverage. Hence the artist's thought and work is discussed in the following reliable sources:

East, Brad (2024-05-08). "Digital Lectors for a Postliterate Age". ChristianityToday.com. Retrieved 2024-06-24.
Brierley, Justin. "I saw Jordan Peterson at the O2 last night. He's asking all the right questions (a good part of which is about Pageau)". Premier Christianity. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Dreher, Rod (2024-03-02). "Jonathan Pageau: A Prophet Rises From Quebec and YouTube". europeanconservative.com. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Taylor, Darrick (2024-04-09). "Jordan Peterson and the Apocalypse". Crisis Magazine. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
Carr, Kathleen. "Jonathan Pageau". Catholic Art Institute. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Barron, Bishop Robert (2021-10-13). "How to live a meaningful life". The Catholic Voice. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
"'Living Tradition' Symposium in Charleston, SC". OrthoChristian.Com. Retrieved 2024-05-31.

And there are also primary sources that have been used in the current iteration of the article, but they are not needed to establish notability, rather they seem to be used for descriptive statements of facts. I believe from the above sources that it's established the subject is notable, albeit within a very particular field of endeavour. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One perspective is clear: while Pageau's outlook is primarily religious, much of what he has done is applicable to secular art as well. It is erroneous to characterize his impact as only 'religious' (personally, I find such characterization as typical of the non-NPOV shown by people hostile to religion).

I found the concluding pages of his Snow White and the Widow Queen - a non-religious text, I might add - to be clever and original. More books in this series of fairy tales are still to be published.

Yes, I can see where people might conclude that WP:TOOSOON might apply, but he already has a substantial published body of work - well, more substantial than my four unpublished books (ha!). Also, he has been interviewed over and over by and collaborated with people judged to be notable such as Jordan Peterson, Robert Barron, Paul Kingsnorth, and Gavin Ashenden: they think he is notable.

Thank you for listening. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have you join in the discussion @Tfdavisatsnetnet - I know you're strongly interested in this topic. To be fair to the administrators looking at the discussion here, they will only be interested in whether the subject of the article is notable, as seen by good secondary sources. However, you do make a valuable point here, in that known writers write about the subject at hand, so Rod Dreher writes about Jonathan Pageau and Robert Barron talks about (and talks with) Jonathan Pageau and Paul Kingsnorth writes about Jonathan Pageau, all of which would indicate, to me, that there is substantial coverage of the subject (while not being exactly world famous). MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to: do YouTube videos count as much as printed material? If so, then Jonathan Pageau IS notable, despite the fact that the sources are primary and not secondary. Again, personally I find him to be far more notable than many others. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you need to point youtube videos. More relevant to point to places where known thinkers are writing about Jonathan Pageau, which certainly includes:

I don't know of an article by Jordan Peterson where he describes the significance of Pageau's work to him, but of course he does co-author a paper with Pageau here, which alone makes him significant, given that Peterson is notable. Still, ultimately, what makes Pageau notable is that he has received coverage from reliable sources in the area of religion like Christianity Today. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An update I did a comb through the article today, and removed material from the Orthodox Arts Journal as the subject is a member of the editorial team. Turns out everything from that source was found in better sources, which I've now added. So, the article now leans on:

Several articles by Terry Mattingly, a subject matter specialist on religion in the United States, in particular "On Religion" published in the Daily Review, New telescopes, old question: Where is heaven? in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and "On Religion: Facing modern chaos, priests need old symbols and truths" in the Tahlequah Daily Press
'Christianity Today' and its article Digital Lectors for a Postliterate Age by Brad East
'The American Conservative', particularly its article "Portrait of the Artist as Iconographer: Searching for meaning in the postmodern wasteland" by Bradley Anderson
The Gospel Coalition, especially its article "Christ and Consciousness" by Phil Cotnoir
'Institute of Public Affairs Review' "Liberalism to the Barricades, Again" by Scott Hargreaves . 76 (1): 34.
My long night with Jordan Peterson — and his superfans, originally in 'The Times' but also in 'The Australian'] by James Marriott.
The British online publishing house 'Premier Christianity', in particular the article I saw Jordan Peterson at the O2 last night. He’s asking all the right questions" by Justin Brierley.]
The European Conservative, with regards its article "Jonathan Pageau: A Prophet Rises From Quebec and YouTube"] by Rod Dreher
Jordan Peterson and the Apocalypse: What I learned at the Symbolic World Summit] by the academic Darrick Taylor.
A book review of Pageau's work in the online poetry journal from 'Age of Muses' by David B. Gosselin
The journal, 'Modern Age' and its piece from 2022 by Grayson Quay, "The Perils of Re-Enchantment: Beyond the end of materialism, G.K. Chesterton and Darren Aronofsky see nightmares: Modern Age".

Acknowledging that that secondary sources like the above are what we use to settle WP:GNG I believe we now have the sources required, following the outline in such as are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, as per WP:BASIC. When it comes to primary sources, following the guidance, only a few have been used and only with regards straightforward statements of facts, these include

The piece "Jonathan Pageau on icons, political dehumanisation, and befriending Jordan Peterson" by the broadcaster Elizabeth Oldfield in 'Theos'
The Greek online journal 'Antifono', and its 2022 article by Kornarou titled "Orthodoxy is the last stronghold of Christianity"

In short, revisions and edits are concluded for now and I submit the article has been improved and reasonable concerns about the notability of the subject have been addressed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having become well aware of Pageau through both the religious and public intellectual worlds and watched/listened to him on various platforms, I am very surprised that this article is marked for possible deletion. The article itself and the discussion above show that there are numerous reliable sources establishing notability. This article should definitely exist, and of course it can always be improved, as all articles can be! Alex IslaCara (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a casual Wikipedia reader and was surprised as well. Never heard of this individual until yesterday and I didn't want to immediately launch into his YouTube videos, so I'm glad there was a Wikipedia page I could read. Please don't delete it. 2600:8800:49B:7800:3418:2EA0:3C86:BCCC (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the subject's notability is established by wide coverage. On top of being discussed in specialist journal articles (such as 'Modern Age') Pageau has received coverage in reliable sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here here and here. MatthewDalhousie (talk)

Keep because subject is referenced in new publications, such as The Classroom as Cosmos by David Mathwin, published by Kalos Publishing in 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamSimonson (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because the references are from niche publications, does not diminish them from going towards GNG, which this person meets.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Flegmann[edit]

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby footballer. My searches yielded many passing mentions and non-independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Mexico, and Massachusetts. JTtheOG (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 08:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andries Mahoney[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Martinus[edit]

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby footballer. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Date with Death[edit]

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

The intent of this is not to be WP:BITEy with a new editor, but they did move the draft to mainspace themselves rather than go through WP:AFC so I think it's fair game. I am reasonably certain this game fails WP:GNG, with the only two reliable sources with significant coverage being PC Gamer and Siliconera, with Siliconera being the only real review. GameGrin/Noisy Pixel are considered unreliable by WP:VG/S and the reliability of The Boss Rush Network seems doubtful. Obviously it's not a commentary on the quality of the game, it's simply objectively stating it is not notable enough for a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, I believe the Template:Notability tag should have been applied to the article rather than outright proposed deletion. Secondly, WP:HELPAFD states, “On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source. “ These guidelines are met here. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't consider PC Gamer as significant coverage since it mostly quotes user reviews and the developer, and has very little of the writer's own commentary. Siliconera is reliable and SIGCOV but 1 article is not enough to meet GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally agree with ThanatosApprentice's first sentence, the template could've been put up. I don't get what the nom means by WP:BITEing a "new editor" as the creator of the article seems pretty experienced. The PC Gamer article and Siliconera articles are pretty reliable, the others... not so much. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. The plot section is completely WP:UGC. MK at your service. 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placing a notability tag on a new article after a due WP:BEFORE is just deferring the issue. And the editor is rather experienced like you point out, so they know moving to mainspace might result in AFD (Generally I think if they may like to continue working on it, re-draftify and insist submitting to AFC). IgelRM (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll admit that the sources could have been a little beefier, but I still think there's enough here that full-on deletion wouldn't be warranted. I'd instead suggest applying the Template:Notability tag for the time being.

Regarding MK's last comment, WP:UGC refers to sourcing things like blogs and forums, which I did not do. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believed that tagging it wouldn't really be able to change anything; from a detailed search I couldn't find more sources. Obviously, if you know of any better ones that exist, make them be known. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redraftify If this article's deletion is completely unavoidable, I'd at least like to request that it be moved back into the draft namespace so I can continue bringing it up the standard if it receives more significant coverage. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are best off saving the article locally; such as in a txt file of some kind; drafts are for articles that have already been proven notable and they will be deleted after a certain period of time if not published. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no new significant coverage surfaces within that timeframe, I will accept the consequences. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for draftification. We could use a few more participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title has sufficient coverage for general notability, independently from whether or not it it was pushed out of draft space early. Cortador (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: PC Gamer and Silicon Era are fine for sources, Silicon Era is a bit lighter on coverage, but with everything else present, article is ok. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Elephant[edit]

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

Entire article violates WP:OR. The sources that are actually reliable are treating the subject as merely one of them many concepts of Hindu cosmology. All other sources are either primary or they are based on outdated sources, and they don't help the subject in passing WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only one entry, Alex Danvers, has a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Disambiguations, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab not needed per WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Alex Danvers. It's hard to add a disambig hatnote to a table (list of episodes, as the other meaning is an tv show episode). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a case of WP:ONEOTHER as there is no clear main topic. Broc (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as there is as the episodes title is clearly referencing the character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two topics. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The standalone article should be primary, with a hatnote being used to direct readers to the other Alex, who is only mentioned in the article body. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers and add hatnote to season page per WP:TWODABS/WP:SIMILAR/WP:ONEOTHER. Primary topic with only one other topic that isn't stand-alone article-worthy. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. I've added coverage of the first topic (the episode "Alex") to the second topic (Alex Danvers).[6] There is a redirect (Alex (Supergirl episode)) that could be used for a hatnote on Alex Danvers#Season 2. I wasn't sure if it was okay to do a see also for a redirect, but it makes sense here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. The article now has information about the episode "Alex." This two-item disambiguation page serves no useful purpose. If not redirect, then simply delete. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Robotyne[edit]

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

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems the best course of action for now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the user @HappyWith, the ProveIt citation tool has a serious problem with ISW pages; see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.

I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion/merge: The Russian military's capture of Robotyne can be appropriately covered in a few sentences at the southern Ukraine campaign article; I find it unprecented, unwarranted, and undue to glorify this event with a standalone "battle" article. Best wishes to all editors involved SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Compared to the Ukrainian capture of Robotyne during the 2023 counteroffensive, this battle is far less significant, and can be easily be covered in the larger Southern Ukraine campaign article. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calabar Chic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There’s in short, no piece that is independent of the subject to establish notability. BEFORE does not provide anything different. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.

Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sourcing is fine, [7] as well. Most is celebrity coverage articles, but they give background and some context into tragic and not-so-tragic events in this person's life as of late. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election[edit]

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

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Disambiguations, and Australia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with the other AfD - what's the deletion rationale? The disambiguation seems fine to me? SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete: two topics; no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:26, 23 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!} 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election[edit]

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

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Disambiguations, and Australia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the deletion rationale? The disambiguation seems fine to me? SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete: two topics; no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:28, 23 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!} 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halang, Calamba[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Virtually unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source being used (Nov. 2018 archived copy) does not back up the claim of the barangay being "one of the richest barangays in the city". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bucal[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Generally unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source (2019 archived copy) does not back up the statement on the etymology of the barangay toponym. Much of the article is a directory of their establishments and landmarks: a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batino[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). The only source, [8], only discusses the eponymous plant and does not mention anything about this barangay (also, no mention of the city and the province). See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barandal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thato Mofolo[edit]

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

For some reasons, I cannot draftify this. Tagged with {{Notability}} and {{no significant coverage (sports)}} as it fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:ANYBIO. Yes, she scored a brace and so on, there's no WP:SIGCOV, and BLP is a very delicate subject which requires strong and adequate sourcing. dxneo (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything better than the sources already in the article, which fall way short of SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article currently lacks substantial coverage from independent sources to justify its presence on Wikipedia. Waqar💬 16:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodboy Galaxy[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG - could not find reliable, significant sources about the game besides Time Extension. The other sources from reliable outlets were just not significant coverage and amount to simple Kickstarter announcements, or are primary source interviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements about the game in reliable sources is still coverage. Are only full reviews defined as 'significant coverage'? Oz346 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV for games is almost always some sort of major piece of critical commentary. In rarer cases it may be some sort of "making of" article or book or a deep-dive analysis. However, announcements have little to no commentary or analysis and do not address the subject "in detail". To use the Nintendo Life article as an example, the only thing that could be called commentary rather than just quoting others is "Goodboy Galaxy certainly looks polished," which is a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

//Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.//

According to wiki policy on SIGCOV. The main topic of those announcement articles is the game. But I will wait and see what others say as well. Oz346 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend presenting the WP:THREE best examples of significant coverage and letting people react to those. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Damn Personals[edit]

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

Non-notable band with a bio that's been completely unsourced for its entire existence. Band member Anthony Rossomando is notable but has his own page. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep. I only looked for reviews online (excluding Newspapers.com), but found published material of varying length:

Ox-Fanzine [9]

de:Visions [10]

Punk Planet [11] (short)

CMJ New Music [12]

Boston Phoenix [13]

Impact Press [14] (short)

In Music We Trust 1 [15] (short)

In Music We Trust 2 [16] (short)

Allmusic biography (very short) - also mentioning blog, unreliable

I'm also taking into consideration that this is what has survived on the Internet, from a time period where much has been wiped out. Geschichte (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UJ Soweto Stadium[edit]

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

Since notability is not inherited, neither the notability of a sports team nor of competitions played there imply the notability of a venue. With that being said, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NSTADIUM. If I knew how to multi-AfD, I would've included UJ Stadium. dxneo (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Johannesburg#Athletics, sport, arts and culture. Giant Snowman 10:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yang Dang Khum[edit]

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

Unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Thai bombing of Phnom Penh, this one doesn't appear to be a hoax, but the creator's editing pattern suggests that the text is AI-generated, with fake citations (which I have removed) that do not support any of the facts. This will need to be blown up and entirely rewritten to comply with verifiability requirements. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cambodia, Thailand, and France. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thai bombing of Phnom Penh[edit]

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

The historicity of this claimed topic is completely unverifiable. None of the claimed book references mention anything remotely close to a bombing of Phnom Penh on 13 January 1941, and a Google Books search reveals no mention anywhere else. This looks very much like a hoax, but it's probably not blatant enough for G3. Paul_012 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cambodia, Thailand, and France. Paul_012 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as made up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference 2 exists, but never mentions Phnom Penh at all: [17]. Seems to be a hoax. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doubts exist around the bombing's occurrence. The provided sources don't mention it, and wider searches haven't yielded any results. Deleting this article for potential factuality issues might be best. Waqar💬 16:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criollo Project[edit]

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

Car or car project that doesn't pass the WP:GNG. The title is so bad that a redirect is not recommended. The article is also very new. gidonb (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Transportation, and Poland. gidonb (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is only passing mention in a few trade internet sites and nothing from any major, reputable source to indicate notability. I added multiple tags in May during new page review to encourage the editors to improve it. They removed much of the peacock and advertising (it was OK to remove my old tags recently) but have not done anything on notability plus all the images have been removed due to copyright violations. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Pierce[edit]

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

Fails GNG, only sources that I can find are database mentions and the Australian Olympics website Traumnovelle (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That leading Australian newspaper archive Trove brings up NOTHING for "Ted Pierce polo" has me suspect that he was known under some other name or something. I also think that there's a good chance there's sigcov in Water Warriors, a 600-page book chronicling the Australian Olympic water polo team, especially given that he seems to have been one of the more prominent players as he was chosen for three Olympics (he is mentioned in the book). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's also known as Edward Pierce but that gave me nothing. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trove is actually extremely limited. It lacks most of the major Australian newspapers. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trove is extremely limited from 1954 onwards. And this guy was in the 1956, 1960 and 1964 Olympics. Using online newspaper sources for this era in Australia is useless. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES should have a comment on what to do when there are copyright or similar corporate subscription imposed online blackouts. The-Pope (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although there isn't abundant information about him online, he's a three-time Olympic national and that's significant. I've been able to find three mentions of him on a Dubbo local newspaper and I'm sure there's more to be found in media that's contemporary to his participation in the Olympics. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiscus Coast busway station[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no SIGCOV exists for these bus stations on their own. Just press releases and routine news reports of events occurring there. I propose merging to Northern Busway, Auckland I am also nominating the following related pages

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose I don't think it was a good idea to bundle this nomination. At the very least, Constellation Station is notable; there's enough coverage to bring it over the GNG line. I therefore have to oppose this in its entirety. Schwede 66 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide sigcov I'll withdraw Constellation. I couldn't find anything with a search. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Northern Busway, Auckland per lack of significant coverage. If the issue of notability can be determined for individual stations then the articles can be reassessed. Ajf773 (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled nominations like this require more participation than this one has had so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Northern Busway, Auckland. Djflem (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Amato[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO; lede reads like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Florida Times-Union source already in the article along with [[18]] and [[19]] each contain multiple sentences of in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. I'd say the WP:GNG is met here, and while this article needs to be improved, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ederies Arendse[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Greg Miller[edit]

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

A classical musician who has played as a member of some orchestras and bands and now is a private music teacher. Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Google search finds a few limited mentions but without significant coverage. Only this bio from his college quintet provides some coverage for a career that does not appear to pass the notability standard. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arizona, California, Colorado, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transit authority (surveillance term)[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Just a definition, no discussion or context. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical sizes of railroads[edit]

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

This is a strange remnant of an older Wikipedia that has somehow escaped notice since 2005. It's a list of those railroad companies in North America which in 1948 had 1000 or more steam locomotives. It might be sourced. It's definitely not encyclopedic, and I don't see how it could be. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam locomotive production, a similar article of the same vintage from the same author. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A strange remnant indeed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The title is misleading. This is essentially a list of North American railroads by number of steam locomotives in 1948, an impossibly niche criterion for a list. I would not oppose an article resembling Timeline of largest passenger ships, except of course it would be something like Timeline of largest North American railroads by mileage or something like that. But the title is vague and the article seems all but abandoned, since there were no edits at all between 2012 and 2020 (and no non-minor edits between 2007 and 2020). This vestige of early Wikipedia is pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever the original intent, this seems a very short and incomplete list. There are numerous railroads/rail lines in the United States. Looks like the editor just went by info in the two books listed, but there are no details of which pages, etc. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dobley missile strike[edit]

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

Redirect to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). One of hundreds of airstrikes conducted in Somalia. Fails WP:GNG to stand on its own. Sourcing is routine news coverage and not WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Somalia, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is the only Tommahawk missile strike to have occurred during the Somali civil war, it therefore is clearly notable enough to stand on its own.XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ search_type=Obj_id&objid=21351&objname=5&img_stamp=YES&hconst=73.0&omegam=0.27&omegav=0.73&corr_z=1 "this". {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

[1] search_type=Obj_id&objid=21351&objname=5&img_stamp=YES&hconst=73.0&omegam=0.27&omegav=0.73&corr_z=1 "this". {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

[1]