Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 13	October 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

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

While the outcome of this case may be significant, this article currently feels like WP:NOTNEWS given that this an ongoing court case. I think the case being covered at Asian News International and Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation is enough without warranting a whole article on the case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Law, and India. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: This is significant coverage and shows the potentially groundbreaking nature of the case. I do not see how all this information can be merged to the page on ANI. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying there's sigcov, but I am saying that given the ongoing nature of the case it doesn't warrant a standalone article. I was more towards merging the content into Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation (which currently only devotes two sentences to the case) rather than into the ANI article. I don't think the ANI article needs more content about this than is in it currently. Perhaps some content could also be included in Freedom of expression in India. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the significant coverage and that there is no rule against having an article about an ongoing court case (there must be three ongoing cases against Trump) there's no reason to delete. If anybody really wants to merge, I'll suggest waiting until the court case is over, then try to make your case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While NOTNEWS does apply to many cases, this appears to have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to keep it. nf utvol (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject meets WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. There is no rule that ongoing cases cannot have an article. Multiple independent reliable sources discussed it in detail. GrabUp - Talk 02:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any connection between this AfD and this news? GrabUp - Talk 03:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources already in the article demonstrate notability. WP:NOTNEWS does not override WP:GNG. McYeee (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Smallbones's comment and WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smallbones. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics on the Portuguese Empire in Goa-Anjediva, Bombay-Bassein & the East Indies

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

A list of topics related to the Portuguese colonial empire, but only the parts in the East Indies; I see little use for this as a list for navigational purposes when there is already the template {{Portuguese overseas empire}} and other methods of finding pages in this topic area. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and Portugal. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a fork and is also unnecessary. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Kalyan

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

Tagged for notability more than six months ago so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and United Arab Emirates. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources listed show any particular notability, and a quick Google search only returns some statistics pages.nf utvol (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Deutschland

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

I could not find additional references, sole reference does not seem to be about the song specifically, request for additional references is over a decade old Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Croatia, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's only source is a political science book, mentioning very briefly that the song appeared on TV once in 1992 during a key moment in Croatia-Germany relations. That's not enough for a Wikipedia article and the song has no other coverage that I can find. The singer had a long career but is only visible in the usual streaming and retail sites. Wikipedia is also not the place to copy/paste some lyrics. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Díaz Noci

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

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Law, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I see enough citations of this subject's work to think he meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkeo Corner, Indiana

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

Only evidence found was for the post office; otherwise, a "no there there" spot. Mangoe (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of "Tarkeo" at https://decaturcounty.in.gov/ -- or indeed on any in.gov site. The National Gazeteer (1988 and others) has it as a populated place on the Greensburg U.S. Geological Survey Map, however, and there's a bunch of buildings at that location (GMaps). WP:GEOLAND means it's not a delete, but I'm happy with with either redirection to Decatur County, Indiana#Unincorporated places given the lack of sigcov, or retention as a permastub. I'd land harder on the redirection side if the Unincorporated places section had a structure that caught the "details" of this and the similar unincorporated places permastubs. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't read WP:GNIS, you need to do so now as it explains why, in these discussions, we haven't taken mere appearance of a name on a map or listing in GNIS as authorative. It's common even then to find place names which are just post offices, either in railroad stations or even in peoples' houses, from the days before RFD when people had to come in to collect their mail. That appears to be the case here, and we have not as a rule kept these without other documentation. Mangoe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Braudy (art dealer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are all connected to the subject or are not significant coverage – fails GNG. The previous AFD mentioned some offline sources, but they are not accessible for verification and the descriptions of these do not seem substantive (e.g. among brief quotes from art dealers, not biographical coverage). He is now appearing on a reality show but this would not be a basis for notability (though this could be redirected there should an article for the season be created). Reywas92^Talk 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Arts, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he was already discussed in a deletion discussion a couple years ago and the result was keep. It looks like he recently participated in the Netflix reality dating show "Love is Blind" (Season 7). It looks like a pretty big show and I see a number of articles written recently about him and his business from the show (it looks like he had a pretty negative image on the show). Seems to me like it would be an odd time to delete this page since there are now more sources than ever on him. And probably more coming out since this all seems to be unfolding in real time. Maybe a better approach is to add sources about his Love is Blind stint. And maybe update his title to "Art Dealer & Reality Show Contestant" if possible. All of this seems to be unfolding in real time so my opinion is to wait a bit and see if any additional coverage comes out in the coming months. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reality show participants are rarely notable. Routine coverage of episodes and the contestants do not establish notability, even though there is plenty of tabloid media about them. Not a single other Love is Blind participant has an article, even as all of them also have "more sources than ever". Love Is Blind season 7 is a good redirect target assuming the page is made. There should be substantive coverage unconnected to this appearance to justify keeping this. Reywas92^Talk 13:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Leo was generally accepted as notable before his reality show stint, I'm just saying if he was accepted as notable before, it might be prudent to wait a bit and see if any other articles come out about him considering the reality show stint. It would be one thing if this page were created after Love is Blind Season 7 came out, but it's been on Wikipedia for a few years prior. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. In my opinion it seems prudent to wait a bit. The Love is Blind stint is not a basis for notability, but is worth adding to his page, which I see has been updated to reflect this. BigFish3387 (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not notable enough to warrant an article only references of him online are personal websites/company owned websites. Just to note; the two other replies are from accounts that originally wrote the article about him (The accounts are probably Leo Braudy) Eric89SPIN (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - we almost always delete stubs about participants who don’t win or place in an unscripted “reality” show. There’s lots of precedent - some of which I created back in the late 2000s-early 2010s, and saw my work deleted. Consensus can change, but this one developed over many AfDs. Unless you can show clearly some significant coverage, this, too, must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not sure it was a strong !keep last time, but since the TV show, there's more coverage. [1] and [2] are about this person and cover his job. With the others given in the article, should be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine reality show tabloid coverage generally doesn't count toward notability, I can find articles/interviews about many contestants. Reywas92^Talk 01:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: The sourcing is all primary/self published promotional material or a single mention in an article about a reality TV show which he was a contestant on (nothing more than a photo, age, and profession...not even a full name). None of the sources in the article are even close to establishing notability through WP:GNG or WP:BIO (primary self published sources and the single Variety article that mentions him in passing) and it does not meet the sourcing requirements for WP:BLP. nf utvol (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Millanguir

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; Christianity Today has only a passing mention with highlighting the person's notability; Youtube is actually very bad source for citing. Nor more sources are provided. WP BEFORE was applied but I cannot add something reliable here. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BISHOPS, "The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. This includes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops." As a bishop in the Anglican Communion, Millanguir is covered by this longstanding precedent. (See also WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, "The bishops of major denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable.") Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing multiple hits in Church Mission Society which appears Anglican but sufficiently independent of this gentleman. This is an Op Ed in Spanish from June, but I'm unclear what the relationship is with Diario Austral; my guess based on the website appearances is that this is another daily Chilean paper. Basically, he's a relatively new bishop, coverage is anticipated to increase, this is in a non-English language with a history of systemic under-coverage with attendant difficulty in finding coverage that exists, and there's no guarantee that if we delete this now someone will come back and create it once he is unquestionably notable per GNG. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but more references are needed. Deb (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP BISHOPS is not an official Wikipedia policy. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every bishop covered by BISHOPS has been kept at AfD as far back as you can go. It’s not just a common outcome, it’s a near-universal outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAPOLICY somewhat applies. If the topical AfD regulars like those here think it's a good enough reason, it's a non-guideline guideline. Again, the assertion isn't that a bishop is notable without coverage, but that the coverage of a bishop may be hard enough to find that it's difficult to prove its presence or absence... but we still know it's almost certainly there somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The person has little or no significant coverage, boasting only a YouTube link and a passing mention in Christianity Today. As this page is about a living person, it must follow WP ANYBIO, and I cannot find anything that would support keeping it. Maybe a redirect to the local church could solve the issue this time. Anglican sources are not independent, and I cannot find them, as Google News doesn’t treat them as reliable (nor does Wikipedia). --Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept diocesan bishops of major denominations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no basis in policy or guidelines for the arguments that bishops are automatically notable. WP:BISHOPS, as an essay, does not represent community consensus. While bishops are often notable, this one does not seem to be, given the lack of third-party reliable sources covering him. Sandstein 16:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite being in the minority numbers-wise, the delete argument advanced by Sandstein is the most persuasive below at this point. Relisting to see if consensus can become clearer with an extra 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More third party sources have been added to the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. I get that BISHOPS is an essay, but it shows that it is standard practice to keep bishops by virtue of their office. If this should be reconsidered, I recommend taking the conversation to the talk page of that essay rather than doing piecemeal AfDs for each and every bishop that you don't consider notable. nf utvol (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: an edge case for WP:BISHOPS, but this subject is verifiably a bishop in a substantial enough congregation to be notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Perego

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

WP:GNG. Usually I would try harder to search for Italian-language sources in my WP:BEFORE search, but indications are strong that the subject isn't notable. He doesn't have an identifier in VIAF. His most-reviewed book on GoodReads has 7 ratings. Despite being described as a journalist, he doesn't seem to have any articles in MuckRack (The ones found seem to belong to the energy engineer). There's a 2019 interview in a non-notable blog. Daask (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Journalism. Daask (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ni Bo

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

The article is rather sizeable, but written from primary sources and with overblown claims.

First regarding the sources: not a single one is significant and independent. They are all primary sources, including a press release from Wuhan Zall; passing mentions, stats or 404s.
The article lists numerous trophies he won with Guangzhou Evergrande in 2011, 2012, 2013. He did not play a single league game during those years, and no games in the Chinese Super League. Only 2 cup games for Evergrande, as well as four substitutions in the second tier. It might be the case that China awards trophies to people who didn't participate for a single minute in those competitions (some other countries don't), but I don't think that's something he he inherits notability from.
He did have brief spells with two clubs in China's second tier (unfortunately we don't have the no. of minutes) and played 614 minutes in Hong Kong, neither of which are strong claims to notability. He did not play a single league game for Wuhan Zall either. What events would have generated coverage then?

If presented one or two independent sources with significant coverage I might change my mind. Otherwise, I don't think this is strong enough. Geschichte (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Osborn

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

Though well-sourced to WP:RS, this entire BLP hits both WP:BLP1E and WP:ROUTINE. Thirty-three (33) of the 34 article citations relate to, or originate directly due to, the BLP's political candidacy. My WP:BEFORE is unable to discover unrelated coverage.
In cases like this we have, historically, followed the guidance of WP:POLOUTCOMES: "[candidates] ... are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls"

ROUTINE: Campaign coverage for a candidate for public office is, by definition and through the way we usually apply this in similar cases, ROUTINE and where an article is formed exclusively with ROUTINE coverage, it fails WP:N. In cases of political candidates with BLPs, we always require WP:SIGCOV to be demonstrated through non-campaign related coverage or by application of WP:SNG
BLP1E: We must also address the question: "If this person loses his election, will he still meet our WP:N threshold?" With the only sources about him campaign related, he clearly also fails the BLP1E threshold.

Because this is an otherwise well-formed article, it may also be worth considering Draftiying it for a month (if he wins his election he would obviously meet the SNG criteria), but I'll leave it to someone else to suggest that if they feel this BLP is a redeemable case of WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC); edited 00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Nebraska. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KEEP Osborn gained national reputation as union leader; a better BEFORE would have revealed that, and a better count of the references would have revealed that it's not 33 of 34 about Senate run, as claimed. His candidacy is anything but routine, so not BLP1E. Coverage of his candidacy is anything but routine, extensive significant IN DEPTH in NATIONAL/INTL press (as noted in nomination). Djflem (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"His candidacy is anything but routine" That's not what WP:ROUTINE means. Chetsford (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COVERAGE of the candidacy is anything but routine (just as candidacy is anything s anything but routine) It is INDEPTH and SIGNIFICANT in NYTimes, Guardian, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, USA Today, The Nation, Washington Post plus more, but a REF BOMB isn't needed here.Djflem (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, yeah, that's not what ROUTINE means here. We generally use it to mean coverage that would be customary and expected. All political candidates are the subject of coverage related to their candidacy. We routinely delete these articles if they haven't received any other coverage other than coverage arising out of their candidacy. See WP:POLOUTCOMES for an explanation, and examples, of this. Chetsford (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Nebraska. Candidates rarely meet WP:NPOL, and the coverage is routine campaign coverage. The sources around the strike might be something, but I'm not seeing it as in-depth about Osborn himself to meet GNG. If he wins in November we can re-assess. Bkissin (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Union leader could be notable, but I'm not showing much coverage about him during the strike, mostly about the strike itself. Running for office and being in the navy aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Svitek, Patrick (October 4, 2024). "In Nebraska, independent Senate candidate gives GOP a competitive race". The Washington Post. Osborn gained national prominence after he led the 2021 strike as president of the local Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union. Djflem (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan, Juliana (November 7, 2021). "Meet the 18-year Kellogg's veteran who's leading workers in a month-long strike that's still going: 'What's at stake here is the American middle class'". Business Insider. Retrieved February 18, 2024. Djflem (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While great to fill in biographical details this, again, is coverage directly arising out of the candidacy. Our longstanding precedent is to accept as N unelected candidates only if they have SIGCOV unrelated to the candidacy. Chetsford (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that removing a page of neutral, non-propagandistic information about an American election while that American election is happening would be a disservice to the world. Yeah, call this an IAR !vote if you'd like, but I think the way we handle political candidates is more than a bit silly in general, and in this particular case — a non-Republican seen as having a shot in Nebraska — even more so. It's not a routine campaign, in the vernacular sense of the word, and stretching the Wikipedian jargon of WP:ROUTINE to dismiss all coverage of a candidacy is cutting off our nose to spite our face. XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. We can revisit this after 2024 US elections are over. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you clarify the policy basis of your !vote? I may not be familiar with a policy that allows us to retain not notable BLPs in mainspace if there's an election scheduled in the USA. Does this policy apply just to USA elections or are there other countries it applies to, as well? Chetsford (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot reject WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS type of events that have resulted in the creation of this article, but I see some potential in this subject and cannot reject the possibility that it will undoubtedly meet WP:GNG soon. That's why I said we should wait. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I cannot reject WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS type of events that have resulted in the creation of this article, but" There's not really a "but" if you accept this as a case of unexceptional BLP1E. BLP1E is a policy. "it will undoubtedly meet WP:GNG soon" I see. Can you clarify the policy that allows us to uniquely keep this non-notable article in mainspace instead of Draftifying it like we do all other articles that might meet GNG in the future, but don't currently? Chetsford (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC); edited 08:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Weak Keep) ... not BLP1E due to the Kellogg's strike and the election ... I think this article needs more work and then after people have had the time to add more sources related to the strike, this could be revisited at a later date. Also I disagree that the election coverage is routine, independent candidates don't generally get this much attention. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: You said "I think this article needs more work and then after people have had the time to add more sources related to the strike, this could be revisited at a later date"; did you mean to !vote Draftify? Chetsford (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or did you mean keep, as you ivoted, since its not BLP1E based on prominence in Kellogg's strike, since candidacy coverage is not routine, and since AFD is not clean up? Djflem (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford:@Djflem: I don't think it needs to be moved to draftspace. It's a complete article, but needs more sources showing the extent of his involvement with the strike. I believe there is a template someone can add saying it needs more sources. Still voting keep. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable American labor leader who passes general notable guideline requirements WP:GNG. The subject has significant coverage WP:SIGCOV that is in depth and from different national publications indicating that he is an important labor leader. He has received major coverage now due to two events. Passes all requirements for being a notable labor leader per WP:BIO. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vem Miller

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E and an overall lack of coverage aside from the Trump event. Sir MemeGod  20:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United States of America. Sir MemeGod  20:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Any insinuation that Miller intended to assassinate Trump is a BLP violation. Miller is not notable enough to warrant an article barring the incident on Saturday, either. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Security incidents involving Donald Trump#2024 incident at Coachella rally instead? Ss0jse (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thabiso Sikwane

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

Trivial Article that does not comply with WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria nor with WP:DIRECTOR Pitille02 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough reliable sources on the article demonstrate notability. Jeanette Fiery Red Haired Martin (dime?) 19:00, 14 October, 2024 b(ITC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Radio, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cladoselachida

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

This is a lesser used synonym of Cladoselachidae (see [3] [4]) and most recent studies prefer the family name (e.g [5]). The mindat ref (which is a mirror of the Paleobiology Database) is unreliable (it doesn't even contain Cladoselache the defining genus of the Cladoselachida(e) ) as it cannot accomodate conflicting taxonomic schemes and often contains outdated information. I tried to WP:BLAR it but was reverted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per nom, the original author has failed to respond to comments on the erroneous methods they are using to create articles. UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR is an acceptable WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cladoselachidae. Nominator's original action was correct. William Avery (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cladoselachidae as synonym. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mavişehir railway station

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

Tagged as uncited almost a year ago. I could not find enough good sources to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I agree the article needs to be re-written and sourced, deleting this one in particular has no logic. I will go through these railway station articles in the coming days and add/expand to them with the new information and updates available. These articles were written years ago, and should be updated indeed. This comment goes for ALL IZBAN stations that are currently outdated. I will get to them all by the end of the month. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep pending Central Data Bank's improvements. If the article can't be expanded after a reasonable amount of time (at least a couple of months) then merging and/or redirection to an appropriate broader article will be appropriate but there is no case for outright deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukanya Verma

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

Fails WP:GNG. AmericanY (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and India. AmericanY (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable and prolific film critic, winner of a notable award, columnist with Rediff.com and The Hindu. Highly cited on Indian cinema-related articles on WP. Member of the top film critic circles in India, and an approved film critic on Rotten Tomatoes. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the Rotten Tomatoes external link source. — Maile (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFreeway

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

I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Hardly meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Canada, and United States of America. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is presented on the page. So this meets the general requirements for notability. Also "Making Media:Foundations of Sound and Image Production" (2022), p. 300, for example -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It is very old and one of the top companies worldwide of film festivals submissions. It should not be deleted. 2409:40D0:103C:C938:3985:2B19:AB0F:1E61 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Ravindranath Rao

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

Fails WP:GNG, there are no sources which discuss about the subject in depth. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Karnataka. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Boháčik

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

Another long-unsourced article of a Slovak men's footballer named Tomáš without sign of meeting WP:GNG. He has never played at professional level as far as I can tell. The only reliable secondary source I found is SME, which contains an image caption and one sentence describing his rumored appointment as coach of FK Mesta Tornaľa. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:45, 14 October 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꒱˚｡⋆ 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt–Gaza barrier

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

No particular problem with notability, however the article is a totally unjustified near-complete SPINOUT (technically still a spinoff). One quick look at Egypt–Gaza border#Buffer zone by Egypt shows how content-unbalanced the current situation. Advising to urgently merge into Egypt–Gaza border. Running this through AfD so more editors will see the procedure. That said, this is NOT ABOUT NOTABILITY but about content management. The article can also be seen as a CFORK. There is huge overlap. No need to rehash everything so many times. gidonb (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt, Israel, and Palestine. gidonb (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Egypt–Gaza border. The large overlap doesn't support having a separate article. Zero^talk 12:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Opened by a sock of an LTA. Izno (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Kukula

AfDs for this article:

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

It has been six years since the Daily Mail reported (Redacted). SandrineWiki (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

< Multiple violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy (unsourced speculation about a living individual) redacted AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC) >[reply]

It is curious that, as far as I know, the man himself has not requested his Wikipedia biography be removed. Perhaps he is unaware he has that right. Or perhaps he sees a benefit in it continuing to be the top result on Google for his name? SandrineWiki (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the nominator presents no Wikipedia policy for the AfD. There's a general disclaimer for Wikipedia and the argument provided has no merit here. – The Grid (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general disclaimer is quite irrelevant in situations where sufficient information exists on which to make an informed judgment consistent with the values of Wikipedia (and one assumes protection of minors is one such value). If there is no actual Wikipedia policy that says <redacted AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC) > should be considered for deletion with a full and thorough debate of the facts, I would be quite surprised.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. – The Grid (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Astronomy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the above redactions are wholly unnecessary and potentially indefensible given the perversity of their effect here. I find it curious, for example, that the matters I spoke of above, now redacted, were freely discussed in the first deletion discussion. They are still visible. "Wikipedia" is still facilitating their discovery (while disavowing general responsibility for their publishing). All I have done is restate the case with the added data points that six years have passed, certain matters relevant to this subject have become newsworthy, and this man still has a LinkedIn profile that says things relevant to those news stories. Given all that, I thought now might be the time Wikipedia editors choose to make an informed choice using the methods they state are the approved means for such things. I am being cautious about what I say now, while having no idea why such cautious is necessary. I made no allegations, criminal or otherwise. Nothing I said was my own invention, it is all easily discovered or inferred, some by the very source I did indeed actually provide to justify my reasoning (the BBC news story). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandrineWiki (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There's still no reason to remove an article because of some allegiation. As your first edit was listing this for AfD, you need to be more familiar with Wikipedia policies. This is something that could have been discussed on the article's talk page. – The Grid (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it appears the nominator may have been using this AFD page to attack or do something to the subject's reputation, or delete because of the subject's reputation. However since earlier content has been redacted, I cannot tell what is going on or the motivation. (And perhaps I don't want to know). There are adequate sources to show notability, and Wikipedia is not censored, like some other web sites may decide to be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bombworks Records

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

Fails NCORP. The sources satisfactorily verify what's claimed, meaning that certain bands were released through them, but as a company, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Possible promotional creation based on creator's association with music promoting business. Graywalls (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Khwaja

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

Tagged a long time a go as uncited. I found a source which describes him as a prince https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315165172-20/jochid-ulus-roman-hautala but I don’t know the subject so not sure if the article is true or whether he is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Mongolia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There seems to be some discussion of this person. [6], [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the biographical dates were incorrect (ruled 1344—1374, not 1320–1344), has received enough WP:SIGCOV in RS (see Cambridge History (2023), The Mongol World (2022), The Horde (2021)). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography

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

The discography and chart history of a nation's Eurovision entries has no relevance to the country's participation in Eurovision. Beyond the songs being Eurovision entries (which are already covered in more detail at Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest), how they charted in their country or elsewhere does not have an impact on the nation's participation history nor its success/placement at the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nominated article for the same reasons:

The basis of this deletion discussion is based in the following policies/guidelines:

WP:GNG: The list lacks significant coverage in sources, with most supplied references being the chart positions themselves, with no added context. The article does not establish what grouping all of these songs and chart positions together is trying to prove, show, or discuss.
WP:NOTSTATS: The list of one specific statistic about these Eurovision songs only shows how they fared on one specific country's music charts (not even at the contest itself); it lacks context or explanation.
WP:LISTCRIT: The list is a synthesis of available information, compiled nowhere else in this level of detail other than on Wikipedia, for which the membership criteria remain somewhat unclear. The point of the article is just to identify a song's placing? To compare? Why only domestic charts? Why do other articles list the album they were on too? What text could be added to provide context without becoming WP:OR? How is this a "discography"?

Grk1011 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Television, Lists, Europe, Ireland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information contained is relevant to the UK charts more so than the Eurovision itself, which is highly notable. It is also a useful guide to how successful the songs were in the real world. The information is well sourced, so I see no reason to delete. The UK article has been in existence for 13 years and receives regular edits, so obviously has a lot of interest. The nominator hasn't given any policy reasons for deletion other than he/she doesn't like it, it seems.Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nominator's rationale but, as noted above, it doesn't appear to be based on a specific policy. Not one I'm familiar with at any rate. To my mind, the main applicable policy is WP:NLIST. Which would expect the list subject/members to be discussed as a group. And several sources, including those I found/added in my own BEFORE, appear to discuss the topic (performance of Irish Eurovision entries in the Irish singles chart) as a subject. And discuss the list members as a group. As expected by NLIST(?) Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now elaborated to identify some specific policies. Grk1011 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Hungary)

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

This is not an official title, it's just a debatable list of the strongest opposition party leaders and some BS. Hungarian system is not the US two-party system, it was a pluralist one between 1990-2010, after 2010 it changed to a dominant-party system similar to Singapore, and now it seem to be close to two two-party system (but actually an extra-parlamentary party almost eradicated the support in polls for opposition in Parliament, but they have MEP-s at all). No idea how stable this era is, and there is still no official opposition leader, like HM most loyal opposition head in UK or Congress/Senate minority leaders in USA. Péter Magyar is just self-proclaimed opposition leader. The article not exists any other wiki, except the Hungarian, currently under deletion talks, with pretty much consensus on delete, and actually this one is the original article, that one is the translation. Huwiki deletion talks: [8] Hörgő (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article says that "is an unofficial title". This term is used in everyday use (journalism, political public speaking, etc.), just a quick Google search proves this. In English wiki, several countries have such article, and not only those countries who adopted Westminster system, see, for instance, Leader of the Opposition (Croatia), Leader of the Opposition (Germany), Leader of the Opposition (Portugal), Leader of the Opposition (Israel), Leader of the Opposition (Albania), and even Leader of the Opposition (Singapore), if it was mentioned, a dominant-party system. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds fair, enwiki is a different thing compared to huwiki. But because it is an unofficial title, it is very debatable. Usually the opposition party's leader with the largest parlamentary fraction was mentioned, but not exclusively, and this changed again with Péter Magyar, whose party has 0 parlamentary seats, but largely seen as opposition leader in the current situation. Why Péter Márki-Zay is not included, while he run against the government with a large opposition coalition in 2022? While the short-lived László Botka MSZP PM candidacy is seen as he was opposition leader, while MSZP was around 10%. Or we just stay by the parliament, then still Ferenc Gyurcsány is the boss, but that will be ridiculous, because his party polls around 3-10%, while Magyar's around 30% or even more now. While during the 1990-94 term, the article stays on the SZDSZ, while later the MSZP got much stronger and won the 1994 elections. During the 1994-98 term, there are 3 leaders from 3 different parties, while MDF was the most strong parlamentary opposition fraction, but yes, in the end of the term, Orbán skyrocketed and became opposition leader, who won in 1998. And Torgyán? Is that a joke? Or his was the 1st opposition party in polls between 1996-97? Source? During the 1998-2002 term, MSZP was definetely the strongest opposition party far both in polls and parliament, but the party leader was the opposition leader? Péter Medgyessy ran against Orbán and won. After 2002, come on, de facto Orbán was the opposition leader, even if he allowed Pokorni and Áder for a short term to de jure lead Fidesz. Ildikó Lendvai, come on, Attila Mesterházy was the 2010 MSZP PM candidate, and in July he took over the party after elections. Later random MSZP and Jobbik leaders, there was no clear opposition leader after 2014. Mesterházy is over, either DK and Jobbik got more popular than MSZP, but it was a chaos. Later they went in a large coalition under Péter Márki-Zay (however his party had almost no support, neither MEPs, he just won the primary due he was not like others, and many people thought Ferenc Gyurcsány is the real boss). After April 2022 it is a clear Gyurcsány, but from June 2024 is a clear Magyar, but even if he got super popular very fast, he has still no MEP's like any other "precedessors". And around 10 years ago, it is debated Hungary is still a democracy or not really. If the later, can we count potential satellite party leaders as opposition leaders? Hungary is not that authoritarian for sure, if it even is, but who is the Russian opposition leader? Gennady Zyuganov with the largest group in Duma after Putin's, or more likely Vladimir Kara-Murza or Mikhail Khodorkovsky, after Alexei Navalny died, who was widely considered as abroad, but not very much in Russia. There is a lot of reasons why this article is problematic from a Hungarian perspective, but if we just want to see a broader picture, in the patterns of similar articles, this is still a very vague, chaotic, not neutral article. Hörgő (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digenis Lakkoma F.C.

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

No evidence of notability and does not meet WP:V. Frost 14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Greece. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The football club has been around since 1957? You'd think they should have a decent history, I found a mention to a previous coach on [9], however the results are pretty poor on the English google search, that's about all I saw other than one official facebook. Is anyone able to perform newspaper or Greek news sources or find anything else? I find it strange there is no history for a Greek club that has been around over 60 years. Govvy (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghamalia

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

Donot satisfy WP:GNG. It is merely a subcaste of Kurmi caste, need to mention it in that article that's all. But, a seperate article is not needed. Adamantine123 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Adamantine123 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Kusiima Mbabazi

AfDs for this article:

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

Again fails WP:GNG and all references fail verification. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.

1) He has two papers, and while one is cited 59 times the one is not cited. Hence there is no notability under WP:NPROF.

2) As mentioned in nomination, many of the sources don't verify (site not found).

3) A web search on either variant of his names only brings up pages that list his job and one customer review he made of a car.

Definitely no indications of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Another non-notable individual, but may together with the two other such articles perhaps be merged into one? Barely anything can be said about the individual Theodore, the topic of the article, who died aged 1 or thereabouts. What the articles (and the sources) really are about is Jackson's treatment of or position towards Native Americans. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how a child that lived for 6 months is notable. There is no claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I read the article and looked over the sources. They're either books or paywalled, so I have not read them, but they're good quality and the topics look direct. I'm confident in the presumption of notability. I'm more concerned about neutral, encyclopedic wording than about notability. In addition to that, I feel including enslaved people, whose stories are undertold, in this encyclopedia is something we should err on the side of doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Charley (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Loffredo

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

The primary focus of the article revolves around a recent event (his arrest in Israel in October 2024), which does not establish long-term notability or significance. There is no significant coverage of Loffredo outside of this incident, and the article lacks in-depth coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources about his overall career or contributions as a journalist. This is clearly WP:BLP1E. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Literally nothing about this person beyond 4 days ago, being arrested isn't notable. Rather routine career otherwise it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't match any of WP:GNG guidelines. Rulebased (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Cockcroft

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Unclear due to lack of citations, but the article appears to have been written using primary sources, and I was unable to locate any additional sources with significant coverage of this person. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. Mn1548 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cockcroft

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Unclear due to lack of citations, but the article appears to have been written using primary sources, and I was unable to locate any additional sources with significant coverage of this person. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. Mn1548 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summit, DeKalb County, Indiana

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

Internet Archive being down I cannot find what Baker says, but he does list a lot of POs. and this is also a rail spot. But again, there's nothing substantial there, and one of those turn-of-the-century county histories only mentions it once, in passing, as where someone is from. So I'm going to say it's unlikely to have been an actual settlement. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are certainly lots of localities that were never settlements and which don't merit articles, but Summit (though now extinct) does seems to have been an actual town in decades past. It's presented as a town in county maps from 1880 and 1925, and a 1938 article calls it a "village" with a population at that time of about 22 people. It also apparently had a general store[10], schools[11], etc., in addition to the post office mentioned. Various other newspaper references identify people or minor events taking place at Summit. Though the article needs better references, I think it merits being kept and improved. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civolution

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

Both of these articles are written by then marketing director Josserand, apparently from his personal knowledge. Much of the original text seems to be entirely impossible to find sources for. Fails WP:V, WP:N and is essentially a WP:BROCHURE besides. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Kochavi

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

Article fails WP:GNG Pitille02 (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Hebrew Wikipedia article has two references that may contribute to notability. Left guide (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any source that can be suitable for this article, just promotional content and profiles, fail WP:GNG. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the Hebrew references. Doesn't the fact she is a grandmaster mean she is notable? Jeanette Mirinda Martin (dime?) 18:56, 14 October, 2024 b(ITC)
Keep. I added a few citations and a link to the Wikipedia page in Hebrew. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Tarawa

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

WP:BLP1E only notable in regards to Gloriavale. Most of the stuff not in regards to Gloriavale are from promotional pieces and Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede 66 04:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.

This is the same for most of the refs, they're either promo pieces or interviews about Gloriavale. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of media coverage from reliable outlets here to establish GNG. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.

Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.

Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.

Ref 6, women's day interview

Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.

Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time

Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.

Ref 11 is a promotional piece.

Ref 12 is a promotional interview

Ref 13 is an interview

Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book

Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier

Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces

Ref 18 is a promotional interview

Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.

Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death

Ref 21 is an interview

Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself

Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards

Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview

Refs 25-27 are interviews

Ref 28 is promotional

Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow

Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book

Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source

Ref 32 is about someone else's death

Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.

Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces

Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.

Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.

Ref 37 is a podcast interview.

Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to

Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it

So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schwede66.-Gadfium (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~, or maybe easier, rescope (retitle) the article to represent coverage of her book. [On reflection, “delete” doesn’t accurately represent my opinion, and I am neutral. 23:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)] None of the sources appear to be doing any fact-checking, and are covering her story as though it were independent reporting, so functionally what they are covering is her story, and most closely her book. Ultimately, media coverage of her herself most resembles something like coverage WP:VICTIM, where as an individual she isn’t that notable, but for the fact that she was the centre of some event, and then wrote it all down and sold the story. Reading that guideline: Outside of her book, or her story, obviously there isn’t some higher-level event-centred article to incorporate her into, and so if we are to just keep the article as is (not an absolutely awful outcome, per my “weak” !vote), her testimony, which should have lead to an article about her own life and experiences, just becomes a page about her. Not optimal, given how much we have to rely on her as primary sourcing, but there is clearly secondary reporting on her talking about her story/book. — HTGS (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there consensus to delete or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very promotional, nothing relevant apart from being a speaker. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VICTIM. Since an article about the Gloriavale Christian Community already exists, there's no need for a separate one about one of the victims. The references are also questionable: too many primary and promotional sources. DesiMoore (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : This is about her book, in a RS [12], but the rest of the coverage doesn't come in RS, so I'm not sure we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also a review here [13], should meet AUTHOR with two book reviews in RS, on different continents. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the review...? It is an extract from the book written by Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong link. It's discussed here [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed here, not at length [15], this is a good review also [16]. With the Herald and the NZ Review of Books, that should be AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the book is notable but I still see an issue with a lack of independent/non-promotional sources to be able to write an article about the subject. An article about the book with a basic ABOUTSELF about Tarawa might be better. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand is a rather small media market, other than the Guardian, it's all local coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwan Kumar Bheel

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

I initially draftified this BLP, which was created by IOmParkashSarwanBheel, who clearly has a AUTOBIO/COI based on their username. The BLP is PROMO and contains WP:OR. Later, they submitted the draft for review and after I failed the AFC review, the creator unilaterally moved the BLP to the main namespace. It clearly fails the GNG as well NPOLITICIAN. Additionally, it remains PROMO, contains WP:OR, and has COI/AUTOBIO issues. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that this article is totally based on reality, If this article is against the policies then you may. IOmParkashSarwanBheel (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I appreciate your feedback and want to address the concerns you've raised.

Conflict of Interest (COI)/Autobiography: While I understand the concern regarding my username and the potential perception of a conflict of interest, I assure you that my intention was to highlight the notable contributions of Advocate Sarwan Kumar Bheel. I have attempted to adhere to Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality, but I recognize that my proximity to the subject may have influenced my initial approach. I am open to collaborating with other editors to ensure the article maintains a neutral point of view.

Notability (GNG and NPOLITICIAN): I have revised the article to focus on factual details and removed promotional language, aligning it with the general notability guideline (GNG). However, I understand that the notability of the subject must be supported by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If the sources currently included are insufficient, I would be grateful for guidance or assistance in identifying additional references that better demonstrate the subject's notability.

Original Research (WP) and Promotional Tone: I have worked on removing original research and subjective language from the article, striving for a more balanced and encyclopedic tone. I understand that it might still require further adjustments, and I am open to your suggestions on specific areas that need improvement.

Article Move to Main Namespace: Moving the draft to the main namespace after the AFC review was not intended to circumvent the process but rather to seek further feedback. If this action was inappropriate, I apologize, and I am willing to work within the proper review process to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards.

I am committed to improving the article in line with Wikipedia’s policies and appreciate your guidance. If there are any specific revisions or additional sources you would recommend, I am more than willing to make those changes.

Thank you once again for your feedback, and I look forward to your response. IOmParkashSarwanBheel (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IOmParkashSarwanBheel, If you hadn't unilaterally moved the draft to the main namespace, I would have definitely helped you fix the issues. However, since you did, I had no choice but to take it to AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed as per nom. Seems PROMO and unreliably sourced. Wikibear47 (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOL, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The promotional and COI problems can be fixed, but I couldn't find SIGCOV of him in English or Urdu, just passing mentions in news articles. The one possible exception I found was this article in wenews.pk, but that site's reliability as a source is unclear, with no evidence of editorial oversight etc on the website.

2024 Duki coal mine attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Should be merged into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024 like other similar incidents. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024: Into existing article. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would say do not RUSHDELETE. Since this happened just a few days ago and we still need to determine if it meets or fails the NEVENT, I would suggest Draftify it for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. Not a lot here that can’t be contained in the list article easily. If it does prove notable through depth and length of coverage - which, there are some indications this might, it can always be re-split out. I oppose draftifying because there’s no problems solved there not solved by a merger. Pakistan specifically only very rarely has long term coverage of events that would receive retrospective coverage in many other countries. But this one seems quite severe so it could change. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024 article since that suggestion was sockstriked PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Mari

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

Can't find any coverage outside of crypto news. The best known as a founder [...] bit is {{fv}} and the source seems to be some GPT spamfarm in any case. Borderline A7 tbh. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and Italy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO for a crypto person. I don't see why releasing a robot is notable, with no other context and two citations for one line of text. the rest seems confirmation of CV items. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivada Inland Waterways

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

Should be deleted because it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which raises questions about its notability. Furthermore, the content appears promotional in nature, primarily serving as a company advertisement rather than providing an informative overview of inland waterways. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent

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

There is no evidence that this ward is notable. There is no evidence that a "suburb" called Sleaford exists, and it is not included in List of United Kingdom locations: Si-Sm#Sl. There are several references which appear to be fascinating books about the history of Newark's elections, but which do not appear to mention Sleaford ward. All I can find is that it exists as a ward electing one councillor to Newark Town Council. As explained in the rather confusing "Geography" section, it is not a ward for elections to the next level of government, Newark and Sherwood District: see 2023 Newark and Sherwood District Council election. There seems to be no accessible map showing the boundary of this ward. (The geog coords given lead to Bede House Lane, postcode NG24 1PY, which Mapit.com puts as being in Beacon ward for district council elections, but unfortunately Mapit.com does not mention wards at town council level).

As far as I can see, all we can verifiably say about "Seaford, Newark" is that is a ward electing one councilor to Newark Town Council, being one of 7 wards. That is not enough for a Wikipedia article.

The article Newark-on-Trent#Governance mentions the town council, stating that it has 18 councillors elected from 4 wards, with a reference to an archived 2011 source showing 5 wards. I suggest that paragraph should be updated to reflect the current situation, where there are 7 wards, perhaps showing the number of councillors per ward (ranges from 1 to 5), and that Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent (and probably the other wards) should redirect there. PamD 07:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK WP:SOFIXIT: I've updated the information about Newark Town Council (which was a red link until a few minutes ago) in Newark-on-Trent#Governance. PamD 07:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this article survives, either as an article or a redirect, it needs to be added to Sleaford_(disambiguation). PamD 07:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I now see that the map referenced at currently ref 5, when zoomed in, shows the boundary of the ward, which appears to be the southern corner of the Bridge district council ward. But I doubt that even this is enough for an article. PamD 08:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards have census data and may pass GEOLAND, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Ward articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 41#Wards. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably delete. Second choice redirect to Newark-on-Trent#Governance where there is a list of the town council wards. The only facts supported by the article's references are that it exists (or existed? - the article seems to contradict itself) as a ward and elects a single councillor to Newark Town Council (a redirect to the main article). Current reference no.3 does not verify "Sleaford" as a named suburb of Newark. Nothing else turned up in searches. Rupples (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I appreciate the complete deletion nomination but I just want to be clear on what the nominator is asking for. It sounds like it is not Deletion but a Merge/Redirect to Newark-on-Trent#Governance, is that correct?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXRV

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one page and one redirect. SBKSPP (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SBKSPP (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: edited to remove excessive text and links, it is now a reasonable dab page. PamD 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXMF

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one page and one redirect. SBKSPP (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SBKSPP (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXDJ

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one station that carries the current callsign and one station that used to carry the callsign. SBKSPP (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SBKSPP (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Hashigaito

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 1 game in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. The rest came in amateur divisions. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Higashi

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and one season in Japan's second league 23 years ago being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masahiro Ikeda

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 9 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. The rest came in amateur divisions. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasutaka Nomoto

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 6 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Reed Kraus

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is also a second nomination. You might want to want check here [17] Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Entertainment, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposing deletion. Jacques Hendrik van Zyl (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC) — Jacques Hendrik van Zyl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: References 2 and 4 should be enough to establish notability, as both are significant and RS. Would be nice to trim the article down to its essentials, as it's vaguely promotional and contains too many quotes. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titans/Young Justice: Graduation Day

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

Reverted redirect. There are scant sources found on Google News. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What was the Redirect target? Are you seeking Redirection or Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted notices at the Comics Wikiproject and DC task force, to no avail. :-/ I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coresystems

AfDs for this article:

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

A decade after the last AfD and the company doesn't seem any more notable under WP:NCORP than it did then. Brandon (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Switzerland. Brandon (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Egypt

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

One of many, many country specific subsidiaries of Microsoft that does not seem to be independently notable under WP:NCORP. Brandon (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, United States of America, and Washington. Brandon (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Chennai Air Show stampede

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

While the article suggests that the five deaths were the result of a human stampede/crush event, law enforcement and the cited news pieces all seem to confirm that those who lost their lives died of a variety of causes related primarily to heat. A case of WP:BLOWITUP with an understanding that this subject may be more notable for the overall event itself, not just the tragic deaths. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and India. Pbritti (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 04:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that a stampede or crowd crush occurred. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:EVENT. Even if a stampede did occur, which seems far from certain based on the cited sources or from a web search, this would still fail under WP:EVENTCRIT #4 in particular. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS, opinionated misinformation. A mention of the tragedy should be in a larger article about the 2024 Indian Air Force Air Show. YogeshwarB 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROUTINE news event that is not notable with no enduring significance. RangersRus (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some weird SYNTH/ OR that just isn't said in the sources. The last one literally has "heatstroke" in the title. Could be a small line in an article about the event if it is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Estimating the crowd size by vague hundred thousands (please be clear and concise, most readers do not know what a lakh is!) is poor and feels like a rush report. This needs to be a part of a general article about the air show, but it needs to be improved with much better numbers and sources. Nate • (chatter) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs the Terrible Lizards

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

Non-notable film. Cited sources only talk about the extinction of dinosaurs without mentioning the film at all. Notability is clearly lacking and fails WP:NFILM. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of films featuring dinosaurs. I find it mentioned here and there, but no significant coverage, and it was only 10 minutes long. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Berry, Mark F. (2002). The Dinosaur Filmography. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 84–86. ISBN 978-0-7864-2453-5. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via Internet Archive.
  The book review the film on pages 84–86 and mentions the film on pages 9, 10, 11, and 357. The book notes: "Commentary: Dinosaurs ... The Terrible Lizards is an unexpectedly polished-looking film, especially in light of the limited resources from which Wah Chang created it. The animation is skilled and the puppets are excellent, without exception. Chang managed to save some time and effort by fashioning more than one head which could be fitted onto the same body, thus converting a Triceratops into a Styracosaurus, then into a Monoclonius, then into a Chasmosaurus, and so on. This tactic helped allow him to parade a small smorgasbord of saurians across the screen, with no fewer than 13 different prehistoric species glimpsed or featured during the film's ten-minute run time. Throughout the film, Chang adds little touches that are unusual for an "educational" film, and that reflect the care he always brought to his art."
2. Thrash, Sarah (June–July 1987). "Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards (rev.)". School Library Journal. Vol. 33, no. 10. p. 64. EBSCOhost 5715370.
  The review notes: "Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards (rev.). 16mm or videocassette. color. 91⁄2 min. Aims. 1986. #9833. 16mm: $250; videocassette: $190 (Rental: $50). Preview avail. Gr 1–8—This lively, animated film shows the evolution of dinosaurs, iden tifies major types, and describes their physical characteristics. The terms are explained and defined to make them more understandable to younger students, and names are superimposed on the screen. In explaining the environment during the time of the dinosaurs, however, not enough information is included on the changes that took place on the earth, and only one theory about the ending of this period is provided. The organization of the material is clear. The only inconsistency is the inclusion of a fully evolved man and woman that are irrelevant to the time period of the film. An interesting film, useful for individual or group viewing."
3. Bykerk-Kauffman, Ann (May 1995). "Dinosaurs, the Terrible Lizards (revised)". Journal of Geological Education. 43: 272. doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.3.266. ISSN 0022-1368. EBSCOhost 508557355.
  The abstract notes: "Dinosaurs, the Terrible Lizards (Revised) ($50), from AIMS Media, is a 10-minute videotape that features the locations of dinosaur finds on a world map; gives a very brief synopsis of the evolution of life on Earth; and focuses on showing, naming, and describing various types of dinosaur. This program is intended for children aged 7–13 years, is very appealing to children, but contains little scientific information."
4. Garrison, Jim (Winter 1971). "Dinosaurs ... the Terrible Lizards". Cinefantastique. Vol. 1, no. 2. p. 32. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Although Dinosaurs...the Terrible Lizards will probably be viewed by only a few fortunate students in the junior high level science classes in the Los Angeles City Schools, its realistic cinematic monsters are as lifelike as any used in a major studio production. Largely a natural history documentary, the film was produced in color by Wah Chang, of "Projects Unlimited" fame, and animated by Douglas Beswick for the Los Angeles Board of Education, and brings to life most of the dinosaurs of the past. There are approximately twelve to fifteen different types of these beasts in the film, including Brontosaurus, Ceolophysis, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Monoclonius, and the Tyranosaurus Rex. Narrated in laymen's terms, the film explains the general lifecycle of dinosaurs and why they became extinct. It also describes through diagrams how large some dinosaurs were: one diagram compares a Brontosaurus to an ordinary one-story house."
5. This Film & Video Review Index notes:
  DINOSAURS: THE TERRIBLE LIZARDS [MP]
  Encyclopedia Britannica 1977 24M $320P $25R Order #3504 Previews 7:3 Nov78 p14 Michele Smith
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Cunard's sources above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given arguments to Delete, Keep and Redirect, it would be nice to have these newly found sources get an additional review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The excellent research by Cunard shows that the film is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the reviews are from reputable sources. Clearly notable Microplastic Consumer (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkhus Rovner

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

Cannot find any books, journal articles, newspaper articles, or websites mentioning him. Only websites that did mention him are Wikipedia mirror cites. Hell, this is possibly a hoax. Roasted (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Ukraine. Roasted (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with points listed above. Multiple google searches (including with aliases) did not return any results. Sources in article do not support any of the article content (one does not exist, and one has very limited information). Wibbit23 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep absolutely, accusations of hoax are groundless. Pinkhus Rovner played a key role in the Bolshevik movement on territory of today's Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a common oversight of AfDeers is not bothering to check the native language sources or the article creators, who are alive and well, to accuse whom of hoax is a grave disrespect. --Altenmann >talk 21:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we have some review of sources here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick LeBlanc

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Derrick LeBlanc (2nd nomination)

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

Nominated for deletion as my search did not yield significant coverage per WP:GNG. Most available sources come from team websites for from fan sites or blogs which WP:SPORTCRIT states is not valid. My search yielded two results that would be considered reliable secondary sources, but as WP:3REFS states in most cases, three references would be needed to establish notability. Reliable source analysis from my search:

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2020/01/03/kentucky-football-dl-coach-derrick-leblanc-leaving-arkansas/2809501001/

This source is from 2020 and is focused on the University of Kentucky having to fill the role of defensive line coach due to Leblanc leaving.

https://sports.yahoo.com/cardinals-hiring-dolphins-assistant-dl-061650718.html

Brief history of LeBlanc's career after being hired by the Cardinals.

As mentioned, all other found sources are either fan sites or blog sites which are not usually considered reliable sources. Other sources also include Team sites, which are not considered independent. Wibbit23 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Louisiana. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick LeBlanc is an NFL coach, most of whom have Wikipedia profiles, especially the one's who have coached as many years as he has. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business and the most popular sports league in the world. Thanks! TurtleTurtle00 Turtleturtle00 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While your points on the popularity of the NFL and coaches are valid, Wikipedia does have specific guidelines for inclusion into the namespace. One such criteria is WP:GNG which states that subjects of articles must have significant, non-trivial, independent, secondary coverage. As required by AfD, I preformed a google search on the subject, and returned sources that are not able to establish notability. Blogs, fan pages, and team/NFL pages are not able to establish notability. Wibbit23 (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently linked this page w/ current NFL defensive line coaches, most of whom have their own pages, why them and not Derrick LeBlanc? TurtleTurtle00 Turtleturtle00 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:3REFS is an essay, not a notability guideline, so in some cases 2 refs are enough. But this subject has more, for example here and here. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that it is an essay and that two can be suitable (hence "most cases"), however, I included 3REFS as the two sources I found were not enough to establish notability due to the first one focusing on the team he was leaving four years ago and how they would fill the vacant slot and the second being a very brief overview of his career. I am not able to open your proposed sources, if you could send them in alternate format that would be great. Thanks! Wibbit23 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may need access to newspapers.com, which can be done through the Wikipedia Library. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I thought there would be more participation on an NFL-related AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kelley (bassist)

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

This person fails WP:BANDMEMBER, article should be redirected to The Roots. For a longer rationale, see the reply I gave to the article creator after my initial redirection. Mach61 23:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Mach61 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A similar AfD happened recently for another member of The Roots and The Tonight Show Band, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamal Gray. There, another editor, User:Tau Corvi made a keep argument, which also applies here. "Per WP:MUSIC a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles is notable. Gray is a member of The Roots and The Tonight Show Band, both have WP articles." Hexatekin (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my argument was for a redirect, but in the end, the article was kept. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry for that yes I see now your argument was for a redirect for the Kamal Gray article, but in the end it was kept. Hexatekin (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexatekin "The Roots" and "The Tonight Show Band" are currently one-and-the-same, this argument is clearly against the spirit of WP:BAND#C6. Mach61 18:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well I added another source and I will attempt to add more sources in the next few days, as I do believe he has been written about a bunch over the past 15ish years since joining The Roots. Hexatekin (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexatekin

The sources you added consist of:

A non-independent interview with Premier Guitar
An OkayPlayer that, like the Inquierer article previously mentioned has little to say of Kelley himself
Another No Treble album announcement that has little to say about Kelley

Mach61 14:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this fails WP:NPERSON and is not saved by either WP:NCREATIVE or by WP:MUSIC's pertinent paragraph. The sources tracked or already presented are worthless. Wikipedia is not a musicians directory nor a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: because there is coverage about him, but not opposed to Redirect if other users think it’s about him as band member mostly. What I am opposed to is Delete, totally. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect to The Roots would indeed be an encyclopaedically acceptable alternate route. -The Gnome (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hennessey

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The only reference in the article is Business Insider profile for Everspark, the company he founded. That source however, is just a blurb from Everspark itself. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everspark. Whpq (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Advertising, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

120 Bahadur

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

Film is scheduled to be released a year from now and just started filming. Majority of sources are announcements or press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my vote is for keep, kindly understand that there are many Hollywood and Bollywood movies that are upcoming in 2025 some are more than a year away yet many already have established wiki pages on them such The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more the list is endless. The information current available on the film 120 Bahadur is good enough to create a wiki page and as time progress and more info is available the wiki page will definitely grow with time. Moreover it is a film about a historically significant event. So the wiki page deserve a place with other films that are up for release in 2025. Bonadart (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to fall under WP:OSE which is not something that can be used to support notability. Can you point out which references are specifically significant coverage that would count towards notability? The ones I see do not but will look at any you provide in case there is something I missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am in no mood to argue, my contention is if The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 which are pure fiction can have well established wiki page, then 120 Bahadur which is based on real life and a immensely historical and significant event if you may think of, also deserves a place, and if you want to talk of capturing space in that case i think this page doesnt even grab a space more than tip of safety pin out of whole wiki sphere. Bonadart (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I am in no mood to argue" - This is a discussion, not an argument. It does sound like maybe you should back away if you are not in the mindspace to discuss. I will reiterate that everything you stated, including in the reply above, would fall under WP:OSE.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be draftified, or redirected, but please don't delete.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history it previously was. Creator objected to the draft and moved it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and Ladakh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Sources are announcements and unveiling of the look and is in pre-production with cast and crew not confirmed yet. No significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON - then what will say or opine about The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more; all these films are 6 months to 1 year away yet they have established wiki pages. most of the crew of the film 120 bahadur are already on board as for cast the film is centered around Shaitan Singh Bhati who is played by Farhan Akhtar which is decided, as for others the cast hasnt been declared but may be revealed pretty soon, as for shooting it has already started as declared. So in all sense and purpose much of the info in wiki page is valid, and so deserves to be in live space. Bonadart (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start – Socialist Internationalist Organisation

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

General failure to demonstrate notability. Article purely sourced from its own website and then International (CWI) (WP:ABOUTSELF violation). Attempt to find reliable sources showed no notable coverage in terms of news coverage. Some results appear on Google Scholar but from those I was able to access in English there are few mentions and those appeared trivial and more to do with outside organisations such as SYRIZA.

Article has been appropriately maintenance tagged for several years now yet improvement has not appeared.

Given that the International they are now affiliated to is non-notable (International Standpoint) there looks to be no obvious redirect target, so proposing deletion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Greece. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -I'm wondering if someone cam look for Greek-language reliable sources? The organization has been around for 50 years and was once part of the Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) so there may be something out there. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Greek sources I have looked at, there is nothing worthwhile. Although the party is old, it has never been influential outside its own area, so there is not enough coverage. A mention by name here is enough, i think. So Delete. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC) (sock strike. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – My community barbeque has been around for 75 years, and it was even sponsored by the city. However, there are no reliable sources covering it in-depth, so it doesn't deserve an article of its own. Yue🌙 18:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prester Jon

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

No sources cited since 2009! Fails GNG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE makes it hard to separate this from Prester John but I don't see this passing WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team Titans - Doing various searches on both his hero name and "real" name is turning up next to nothing outside of fan wikis, so its a clear failure of the WP:GNG. He is already covered in the article on his team (though that article, itself, is of dubious notability) so Redirecting there is sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team Titans agree this will never pass GNG and a this is a good redirect target. Team Titans should be able to pass GNG since the article is about the real world comic book series rather than just the fictional team. Rhino131 (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team Titans - Does not seem to fullfil notability requirements, but a redirect to where the character already appears in context is helpful to the interested reader. And WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team Titans, no objection. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Connolly (Canadian film director)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referencing any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- we would need to see some evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him and his work in media and/or books. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the statements they're referencing, which is not support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this.
Further, there are no inbound links here from any other page in Wikipedia but the disambiguation page at Bob Connolly, and this appears to be a conflict of interest as the creator (who created it in 2013 and has occasionally returned to edit the article as recently as August 2024) appears to have self-identified as Bob Connolly in past posts to Talk:Lee Aaron, but even people who do properly pass our notability and sourcing standards still aren't entitled to write or curate their own articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Sung-hyok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#North_Korea. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]