< November 15 November 17 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to StarKid Productions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday (musical)

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

The article is entirely reliant on primary sources from Starkid Productions, and a BEFORE yields no significant coverage of this subject, with only trivial mentions of its existence popping up across both reliable and unreliable sources. This is better off redirected or merged to Starkid Productions, the company that produced this musical, as there is no indication of GNG being met with this subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starkid Productions per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The best I could find was this review in the student newspaper of Fanshawe College. Clearly not independently notable.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Telugu#Fiction. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nindu Noorella Savaasam

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. First two sources are about the remake and I can find no significant coverage to establish notability for the original here. Creation by UPE and redirect edit warred by IP so I would not recommend a redirect as an ATD unless it can be fully protected to avoid disruption. CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9News Nigeria

9News Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. This is actually a disputed AfC submission which has been declined several times at Draft:9News Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aoi House. On the whole there is not a consensus for any particualr course of action, but there does seem to ba rough consensus that this is not an acceptable stand-alone article. It's already been relisted twice and that hasn't resolved it, so this seems the most reasonable course of action at this time. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Arnold

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

Nominating person again for deletion as this webcomic creator has not been active for a number of years and there are more notable comic creators that do not have wikipedia pages. There are even more notable people with this name that do not have wikipedia articles. Gomanga1 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly does the Delete argument not hold water? You corroborate the argument by your take on sources. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have many articles on artists who are no longer active, that is normal for an encyclopedia. Gomanga's claim that "there are even more notable people with this name that do not have a wikipedia article" is irrelevant for a deletion discussion (WP:OSE) because it's fine if there are notable topics with the same name. The existence of those articles would just depend on whether someone has written them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking more participation. Considering a redirect outcome, which of the mentioned articles are being proposed as the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect – Per Maplestrip/Mable's suggestion above, redirecting to the Aoi House page as it is the author's primary series seems like it would make the most sense.
Gomanga1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gomanga1 has made few contributions in Wikipedia aside from the contested article.
  • Delete outright for lack of independent sources supporting notability. All proffered links are advertorials, trade magazines' routine announcements, and listings. Fails WP:GNG. Fails all WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Something isn't adding up here. If there is enough evidence for independent articles on two works created by the subject; there probably would be enough for WP:NAUTHOR to be proved to save this article. Three critical reviews are all that is needed to prove that SNG. Unless those two works are also not notable, I suspect there may be enough reviews in the Aoi House and Vampire Cheerleaders articles to prove notability here. Did anyone look at the sourcing in those pages?4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't mind merging Vampire Cheerleaders into this article, instead of getting rid of this article. But the problem remains that none of the sources say anything at all about the author. It would just be along the lines of "he created x from here to then, and created y from there to thus" and that's it... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, no Delete arguments any longer. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Team (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC) WITHDRAWN due to the new citations provided below. I feel it now passes WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as it clearly fails GNG and lacks notability. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Strike SockPuppet vote DonaldD23 talk to me 01:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 My bad! I did not leave any space between the link and the next sentence. It should work now. Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be just a blurb about it upcoming, nothing substantial. But if others think it is enough for notability I won't dispute. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can add https://www.wired.com/2007/12/hackers-on-cour/ mentions in https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/tiger-team-member-attacks-developers-not-apps https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/court-tv-getting-makeover-in-08-idUSN14211084/ (repeated here https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/court-tv-plans-rebrand-2008-131955/ also in Variety) ; significant mention in Disguise (see excerpt here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/unauthorized-personnel). Fwiw, the short series is listed on the page about Court TV (a natural redirect if this is all judged insufficient). Mushy Yank (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)@Donaldd23[reply]
I think these are enough for it to pass WP:GNG, so I say KEEP. Another user voted to delete, so I won't withdraw my nomination. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,@Donaldd23 you can withdraw, if that is what you wish (Wikipedia:WITHDRAWN); only, the closer cannot close the nomination as Speedy Keep despite your withdrawing, that is all. But thanks all the same.@MrSchimpf, what say you? -Mushy Yank. 02:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla, thank you for your relist. There's now a possibility to close this as Speedy keep if you think that's helpful. -Mushy Yank. 10:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartley (British writer)

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

This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.

I have looked, but cannot find better sourcing.

This article topic does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPOLITICIAN and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the response of the article creator was to blank this AFD and most of the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Reminder to all arguing for keep that WP:NSPORT Q1 and Q2 are clear that GNG must be met in these cases. asilvering (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Ovcharenko

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. Tennis player who has never won a main draw title, never played in a Grand Slam tournament main draw, never been ranked in the top 250 in the world and no significant coverage of her is included in the sparse references. Shrug02 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. She is not a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. 2. She has not won even one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments. 3. She has not won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, or any of the WTA 125 tournaments. And 4. She does not hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP, or WTA.
Hence, not Wikinotable. For a compendium of tennis players I look elsewhere because Wikipedia is not a directory of tennis players. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out earlier, her title at the Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon 42 is of a high enough level to meet NTENNIS. Has anyone here looked for Russian language sources which could meet GNG? Iffy★Chat -- 11:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous link to the Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon is dead. (It's actually the 75, but it's not important.) I found a source that shows she has indeed won there, and placed it in the article, so the article qualifies. Changing my suggestion to Keep. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you added is just a scorecard. That's not significant coverage. It's like saying every soccer player you can find listed as playing in a professional match is worth having their own page. Shrug02 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link takes us to a scorecard that testifies that she has won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, as denoted in WP:NTENNIS. -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Ovcharenko won 1 W75 doubles tournament, WP:NTENNIS is a part of the global sports notability guideline and its FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline" (so what The Gnome said about GNG still initially still stands). WP:GNG requires multiple independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see that, either in my searches or the article here. Everything that comes up can be categorized either as passing mentions in the scope of something else or just routine match recaps (often getting hits on other people with the same name). Generally, it's very tough to get significant coverage based on just winning low-tier doubles tournaments in a sport that's predominantly popular in singles. As of right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the key point. Like so many of these tennis articles there is no SIGNIFICANT coverage so they fail to meet the overarching Wikipedia criteria. Just having a scorecard saying someone called J Bloggs won a tournament that the Tennis Project deem noteworthy but the real world and even the WTA see as minor, does not meet the required standards. Shrug02 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failing GNG is far, far more important than passing NTENNIS by the skin of your teeth. Score summaries and database sources might well verify an NTENNIS pass but they have no value in a GNG conversation. Also note that WP:SPORTBASIC #5 clearly states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Note the word 'must' is used here not 'should' or 'could do with'. Significant coverage is not a mere suggestion or an afterthought but an actual requirement of every sports biography article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NTENNIS per above. WP:SNGs do not replace WP:GNG but GNG also also does not replace an SNG. They are two separate and both valid pathways to proving notability. The delete votes ignoring NTENNIS are simply wrong and boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. We don't ignore WP:NTENNIS just because you don't like it.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at this article it fails WP:SPORTBASIC as it has only 3 references all of which fall into the category of trivial coverage. This is nothing to do with "I don't like it", it's to do with following the guidelines. Shrug02 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and WP:SPORTSBASIC is only one portion of WP:NSPORT. Someone passing a specific criteria at WP:NTENNIS doesn't have to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC as well. That's not how our SNG guidelines work. At the 2022 RFC on sports we weeded out a lot of the poorly written criteria in the individual sports SNGs; what little is left is still applicable and each guidline is not dependent on the others. If one pathway is met, its met.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, WP:NSPORT's FAQ (which WP:NTENNIS is under) that I linked to in my vote is pretty clear. NTENNIS is there "only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." Thus, the subject must pass WP:GNG under NSPORT guidelines, which is not the case here - despite searching in-depth about Ekaterina Ovcharenko, where nothing changed weeks after this AfD started. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You are totally misinterpreting that bolded paragraph which states “they are intended to stop quick deletions” in a good faith belief that sources can be found in time. That’s exactly what I am arguing. I believe the sources exist but they are in Russian and likely behind pay walls. Why have NTENNIS at all if everything just goes back to SPORTSBASIC which is essentially a regurgitation of GNG? We should just delete NSPORT all together if that is the attitude. And truncate WP:N to a single paragraph. We have SNGs for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a "nonsense", I'm exactly offering you what it says - and you are ignoring the "Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline" part. NSPORT itself is a guideline that shows what is likely to have significant coverage and pass GNG. It's not supposed to be a workaround when GNG isn't met - never was. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems keeping this article is so important to the Tennis Project that they (in the form of @Adamtt9) are now seeking to have me banned from Wikipedia. I joined Wikipedia to occupy my mind and hopefully make a positive contribution, which I thought I was doing. Anyone can check my edit history and hopefully see I have improved many articles in the area of tennis and many other subjects. Frankly I'm tired of this whole business which is damaging my already poor mental health. For this reason I withdraw my nomination of this article for deletion in the hope that I will be left alone to continue my hobby in peace. Shrug02 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug02 There is no need (nor you can, as per the rules it only happens if it's an obvious keep situation) to withdraw the nomination that's valid and, in my opinion, has the consensus. Don't let that sock investigation deter you from things in Wiki - not to mention it was quickly dismissed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jovanmilic97 I wasn't aware I couldn't withdraw but now you have informed me I've now crossed that out. Thanks for your encouragement to not be deterred. I appreciate it. As for having the consensus to delete, I would agree with your assessment but obviously that is not my call. I honestly just hope a decision is made and no more relisting and, most importantly, that I am not made the subject of any further negativity. Best wishes. Shrug02 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding content irrelevant to this AfD
That's a perfectly legitimate action. If you are not a sock, there is nothing detrimental to your presence here from such an investigation. -The Gnome (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome I didn't even know what a sock puppet was (other than the ones you put on your hand) until I Googled it yesterday. I'm just not into all this nonsense. And no I'm not a Sock. Shrug02 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome Oh and by the way the investigation has been closed but no doubt they'll try something else next. Shrug02 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only humbly recommend that you walk away from this AfD and ignore the whole episode. An investigation about potential sockpuppetry is not "harassment". If you feel uncomfortable you might want to take a break from editing; though, there is certainly no need to abandon the project. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

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

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:
- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).
- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allllllice is a major contributor to the article.
  • The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- The first Dagens Nyheter article "Separation är världens sjuka" is a personal interview with the subject including direct questions such as "How did you become attracted to Buddhism?" so it is significant coverage rather than name-dropping.
- The second Dagens Nyheter ”Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist:” is an interview with the subject's co-teacher Sante Poromaa which includes relevant coverage of the subject. For example (translated):This means that he (along with his wife [Kanja Odland Roshi]) is now the highest ranking Zen Buddhist teacher in Sweden.
- The Sveriges Radio interview does not stand alone as evidence of notability but should be considered alongside the other sources.
- The book 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening is a collection of essays on the history of buddhism published by the Sri Lankan government which addresses the subject in the section on Buddhism in Scandinavia.
It's true that some of the other sources you have listed are self-made or websites of related zen centers but, as I understand it, primary sources can be appropriate for non-controversial facts in an article about a person. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully Allllllice (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in your contribution above, Allllllice, produces some kind of clear evidence of notability. I mean, I concur with your assessment of the "sources" more than I disagree! Yes, "self-made", "related zen centers [announcements]", "primary sources" only supporting existence (I do not disagree she has existed!), one "interview [which] does not stand alone as evidence of notability", and so forth. I submit I cannot, much as I try, fathom the persistence of support here. A zen teacher among hundreds of thousands, yes. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would help if I clarify that, since Zen buddhism is a lineage-based tradition based on dharma transmission, to be a "teacher" has a specific meaning. The number of sanctioned teachers is limited (many orders of magnitude less than hundreds of thousands) and even more so for those with the title Roshi. I realise that this isn't evidence for notability in itself, but I hope it is useful as context. Allllllice (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-independent sources can be used as references with some caveats, but they do not count towards notability. None of the sources except "Separation är världens sjuka" are both independent and in-depth. "Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist" and " 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening" are independent, but the first one offers no in-depth info on Odland and the second seems to suffer from the same problem (google-books won't let me see everything). We can't seem to get to three sources that satisfy the SIRS criteria. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three best sources is helpful advice for those looking to demonstrate notability but it isn't a requirement. The criteria at WP:SIGCOV state that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." We have multiple independent sources here and agree that at least one of them is in-depth. Allllllice (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The subject appears to be recognized in international publications as an important Buddhist teacher in Scandanavia. I'm not seeing a particularly convincing source analysis as to why the sources in question don't meet out criteria at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've now added an additional source: Larsson, L. Vägledare i svensk zenbuddhism. Buddhism-nu. 1/08. Temporarily uploaded here.
This is an interview with Kanja Odland from 2008 published in the Swedish buddhism magazine Buddhism-nu that ticks the boxes of significant coverage, reliable & independent. The article itself explains her notability (my translation):
[...] summer 2006 [...] Kanja received "Inka" (Dharma transmission) which is the final confirmation that Kanja is an independent sensei – teacher – with the right to freely teach and appoint her own successors. Which in itself is a unique event in the development of Buddhism in Sweden – that we now have a Swedish, female Zen teacher as a guide and role model.
We now have this together with the Dagens Nyheter interview, which we agreed is independent and in-depth, plus the other sources ("Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist" from Dagens Nyheter , "2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening", Sveriges Radio interview) which we agreed were independent. Allllllice (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Antunovic

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. This lawyer has participated in a couple of notable trials, but that does not make the subject himself notable per se. Muzilon (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as I had a dig around and found some solid coverage. In 1999, he was the subject of a profile piece in the Evening Post titled "The Defense", related to his defence of Scott Watson.[1] He also received some coverage when he criticised the courts for remaining open to jury trials during covid.[2][3] I also found an example of himself—rather than his client—making headlines for his comments made in court.[4] There are articles about his work where his involvement is not merely a trivial mention, for example in this article he makes extensive comments about a breach of name suppression orders.[5] In another article from 2011 he comments on the role of the legal aid system as an expert, and is described as a "senior criminal lawyer [...] well-known for his work on high-profile murder cases".[6] David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I applaud the effort seeking out sources which might support a keep, but this falls under what I described above with him getting discussed for his involvement in cases. The 1999 article is one piece of significant coverage. The Covid protest stuff is slightly less clear but I see it as him generating coverage about a single event. Based on this, particularly the 1999 article, I'm not inclined to change my vote but perhaps I'm at weak delete (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest
  2. ^ Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03
  3. ^ "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03
  4. ^ "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03
  5. ^ "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03
  6. ^ Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MuzilonWP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and per policy at WP:NEXIST sources only have to be shown to exist and do not have to be present in the article. Feel free to add the sources to the article and work on it; but there is WP:NOTIMELIMIT.4meter4 (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Inside Out 2. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety (Inside Out)

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

This article recently sprung up, but not in a good way. I find Joy more notable to have an article, but Anxiety doesn't. She currently fails WP:GNG and doesn't have much to say. She is a fairly new character, i would suggest a redirect to either Inside Out (franchise) or Inside Out 2. Toby2023 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Inside Out 2 article, there is no image of Anxiety from Inside Out 2 on this article. 73.216.182.68 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there is no image doesn't mean it meets WP:GNG. What matters is the sources that meet GNG, not the images. Toby2023 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, I came to tell you that I am making improvements to the article so that at least it will not be deleted. Now I want to ask @Toby2023: what he thinks about the corrections I am making. I look forward to everyone's answers and help. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can do so, i would like to see you try, if you can do a good job, we can close it as a keep. Toby2023 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about notability, something that cannot be changed by improvements to the article, only demonstration of sources. If you have found new reliable sources, you should share them here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: These are the sources I have consulted [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and they are reliable. I will see if I can expand the article further to avoid it being deleted. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Melee. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee (game terminology)

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

Appears to be pure WP:DICDEF, WP:SYNTH or original research. There is no significant coverage about the use of the term "melee" in games that passes notability standards, it appears. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This term is more adequately defined at Wiktionary's definition: [10]. This is just a dictionary definition with no significant coverage discussing why this terminology is important beyond just being a word in the gamer lexicon. All above arguments for keeping have assumed coverage exists, so unless sourcing turns up, I'm siding with the nom, who seems to have done a well-researched BEFORE. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a (gaming terminology) article, it contains significant original research. I would merge/redirect to Role-playing game terms or delete. IgelRM (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The entomology of the word is probably notable given the sources. At the least there are sources that seem count toward WP:N. A merge to Little Wars is another possibility, but I'm not thrilled with that given how short that article is... Hobit (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: This is yet another WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Unless said sources can be definitively shown, such arguments should be seen as holding no water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to everyone: This is yet another "I didn't read the article but I have an opinion anyways" comment. What I'm trying to say is that's it's rude to talk past someone like that. The sources I'm referring to are in the article. If you don't like those sources, please explain why or ask. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit on your sources point:
-The first two sources appear to be trivial mentions that just mention that the terminology of melee was used here. Mentions like this, especially for word definitions, need to have stronger substance. If it was a full few paragraphs discussing the importance of the melee term within the context of the games, or as a whole, for example, there'd be stronger substance here.
-The second two (3 and 4) don't mention melee at all, and are just mentioning that the rules of the game made by Wells carried on afterward. This pertains to Wells's games, not to the melee terminology.
-Source 5 doesn't even mention melee, again pertaining to how the rules of Wells's games were adapted to another medium. Source 6 mentions melee, but doesn't elaborate upon them and instead is just using the terminology like a person with game familiarity would. The source isn't about melee at all, and is just stating that melee is involved with it.
Basically everything in this is a trivial mention of the term, and around half the sources don't mention the term at all. This is primarily about Wells's games, not about the term melee. There's no independent notability shown with these sources, especially given there's no real Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pokelego has summed up my opinion on it as well, I can't disagree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Lukatch

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

BLP of a journalist that seems to me to lack support from in depth coverage in independent sources. Appears borderline so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the ten sources in Hebrew are absolutely dire:
1. Is a piece by him, not independent coverage of him
2. Is a passing mention of him in a band he played in in 1988
3. Doesn’t mention him
4. Passing mention in a brief listing
5. Passing mention
6. Doesn’t mention him
7. Doesn’t mention him
8. Interview with him (his first interview ever)
9. Decent, if rather brief, third party source
10. No longer accessible but looks decent.
That’s not enough to build a stand alone bio article on and it does look like the original creator of the Hebrew article was desperately scraping around for any mention they could find. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that those sources are sub-optimal. Whizkin (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR biography of a professional at work. The Hebrew article is refbombed. Our article is shorter, so there are less references, yet what we have is equally a mixed bag. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kayraktepe Dam

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

Seems to be doubt about whether this will actually be built https://www.silifkegazetesi.net/2024/10/03/devletin-bosa-giden-milyonlari-ve-yatirimlari-ne-olacak/

At the moment I don’t think it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON. Currently fails WP:GNG. It may become notable and it might not. It really all depends on whether it gets built. This could incubate in draft space.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fine by me Chidgk1 (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Harpreet Singh

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

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "he is certainly notable" does not carry any weight. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments should focus on policy-based reasons and the quality of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Banker has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts.
Mister Banker, can you be more specific as to which sources help establish GNG? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: The subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE who is the appointed head of the highest temporal seat of Sikhs and to whom India's second highest category security was granted by the Indian government (The Economic Times, Times Now). He has also received other coverage over the years. See: The Quint, The Quint, NDTV, ABP LIVE, Business Standard — Mister Banker (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, therefore not usable for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Have you even read what NEWSORGINDIA says? You need to show how this coverage falls under it. Simply saying it does, just doesn't cut it. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Mister Banker. Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first two sources only talk about granting Z security to him[11][12] and his refusal, they do not provide any other information about him. The rest of the coverage you are talking about is only due to his controversial statements over the years[13][14], this too is only about the statement he made , this source is only reporting his statement on his wife's arrest at the airport without providing any additional coverage about him, none of these sources have in-depth or significant coverage of his life beyond rudimentary attention to his controversial statements. My rationale still stands, he is only getting occasional news worthy coverage only due to his statements not because he is independently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short, you have agreed that WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't apply here and that he is notable enough that the media seems it worthy to provide coverage to his statements which can be added to the article to let the readers know about his stance on socio-political matters. — Mister Banker (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments such as "there is similar stuff elsewhere in Wikipedia" or "he is just notable, we all know this" are not worth much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once more: Arguments such as "there is similar stuff elsewhere in Wikipedia" or "surely, there are sources" just do not amount to much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As one participant says here, if this subject is notable, then "show the sources". Making claims of notabiity without highlighting evidence, either existing in the article or brought to this discussion, are empty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them address any of the concerns of the nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles." is not a good argument. We don't have articles for Every single number. He was referenced in multiple sources listed on the page and his page has plenty of content on it. S302921 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-check WP:OVERKILL. None of the sources crowding the wavelength address the nomination's concerns. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could argue that, but my point still stands. His article has plenty of information available to keep his page. S302921 (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed auditory feedback

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

This topic is already covered under both "Stuttering treatment" and in detail under "Electronic fluency device". Information on "Electronic fluency device" is fully sufficient Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. @Bl0ckeds0unds Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotelier Maldives

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

Disputed draftification, so here we are at AfD. WP:ADMASQ, assuming it to be a corporation, fails WP:NCORP. Fails WP:NMEDIA 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrinsville Sports

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

Fails basic notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch(talk) 19:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎. Deletion of drafts is not considered at AfD under any circumstances; they are under the purview of MfD. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2025 Gulfport mayoral election

Draft:2025 Gulfport mayoral election (edit | [[Talk:Draft:2025 Gulfport mayoral election|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no point of keeping this draft any further, especially when I'm creating a new one instead. Jimbo218 (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and procedural close per WP:G7. @Jimbo218 We don't delete drafts at AFD as they are automatically deleted after six month period in draft space. If you want to delete a draft you started and to which you are the only author, you may self-nominate using the WP:SPEEDY deletion WP:G7 template. Please don't bring these kinds of nominations to AFD as it is the WP:WRONGFORUM.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Star Trek: New Frontier. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters

List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list contains only primary sources. WP:NLIST requires independent reliable sources that discuss the characters as a group. I haven't found any. Mika1h (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Star Trek: New Frontier per WP:ATD. Not all of the content should be merged, but that article relies on this one to cover the characters so some of this content should be moved to that one.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know the series, but Scholar finds content for Calhoun in this context in Strange Novel Worlds: Essays on Star Trek Tie-In Fiction by Caron, ISBN 978-1476653358. I can see two of three hits in Preview, which looks like a solid three pages of commentary on the character pp. 198-200. Calhoun is also mentioned in a 2018 CBR listicle of best Trek captains. That's kinda thin, but there's a raft of Memory Alpha and other Trek Fandom, non-RS, book reviews, and other associated content with which one could certainly build a Calhoun article if one were to be found notable. Merging is obviously better than deletion, but I'm questioning whether other characters might be as notable as Calhoun, and, if so, whether there is enough RS commentary on the characters such that multiple would be notable. PAGEDECIDE would allow us to keep a list instead of two notable but thin character articles. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and now I see Mackenzie Calhoun already has a standalone article, albeit one not previously WP:SS linked to the list. So, one of our options (with appropriate notice and feedback, of course) is merging Calhoun's standalone article to the list or to the series article. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as three primary sources do not an article make (after 16.33 years, no less), nor suffice to be added to another article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying Star Trek: New Frontier is not notable and hence should not exist either? Your comment on primary sources not sufficing for addition to another article isn't policy based, as primary sources can be used when non-controversial on a notable topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe they're saying that it's not enough to build an article on by itself. Articles need reliable, in-depth citations from secondary sources. We can use primary sources, but that needs secondary coverage to back it up. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let other editors speak for themselves, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Fourthords: in case they would like to clarify themselves. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I follow. Notability is not sui generis, nor is it inherited. Regardless of the notability of Star Trek: New Frontier, the discussion here is if the characters in Star Trek: New Frontier are notable as a set. If the only sources providing commentary, details, insights, etc. on the characters in Star Trek: New Frontier are primary, then we should not have an article on them, as they are not notable independently of the show they are part of. In this case, there is no reason why the article on the show should not include them. If it is a question of article length (which should be supported by reliable, independent sources), then the characters must be of such little importance - as evidenced by the fact that other parts of the show have received so much commentary or analysis but not the characters - that the portion on characters can be reduced to a very brief section. Shazback (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to Star Trek: New Frontier per WP:ATD. There are certainly secondary sources discussing characters like that provided above, or The Sex Is Out of This World, where there is in-depth discussion on Burgoyne (and other characters reactions). But currently I don't have the time to look myself if there is enough to fullfill WP:LISTN or not. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. SNOWCLOSE and adding a little salt. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Allam

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

And again declined and rejected at draft, speedy deleted previously, zero independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frustratingly told them very clearly that this person was not notable over IRC a few days ago. Declined the AfCs a bunch of times. Salt? qcne (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not finding any real proper independent sourcing that could salvage this article, which feels promotional, is written oddly, and doesn't even make an attempt to source the individual facts. WP:SALT is appropriate here since it appears that unless blocked, this will continue to be recreated as the editor either won't or can't listen to what other editors have told them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there is currently an advertisement on Freelancer for someone to fix articles related to this subject. [15] CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is extremely concerning. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a 'not a ballot' template for this reason. JuniperChill (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Procyon117 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional, CV crap. This should be immediately deleted. There's no need to debate this for a week. There's clearly no significant coverage. Ynsfial (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt It is a pile of scrap. The editor really really needs to go. Its up at coin. scope_creepTalk 23:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and possibly salt) When a draft has been rejected, it means that a reviewer determined that the subject is definitely not notable and cannot (in most cases) be submitted again. This is different to a decline where although its possible to resubmit, if this were an article at the current stage, it would likely be deleted/draftified. Publishing it to mainspace is the wrong thing to do since it will end up being deleted by AfD/CSD/PROD. If significant new sources come to light, then appealing to the reviewer would be appropriate. Additionally, this article is not written in a usual way, using unusual headers, many links to dab pages, etc (though not a reason for deletion as it can be fixed by editing). JuniperChill (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Stardew Valley. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stardew Valley Guidebook

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

The only source that might contribute to notability is the Polygon one, which is surprisingly OK. All the others are unreliable or press-release type, which does not help notability, a search found nothing else.

Also, I have never seen an article on a guidebook before, not that that impacts notability. Do we have any others? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took as examples articles like The Cairo Guidebook, The London Guidebook, and Hero Builder's Guidebook. Ersene (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the examples. The first one has two pieces of reception so is notable - unsure about the other two. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transformare l'organizzazione dei luoghi di detenzione. Persone transgender e gender nonconforming tra diritti e identità

Transformare l'organizzazione dei luoghi di detenzione. Persone transgender e gender nonconforming tra diritti e identità (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources in the article discuss this book, only a few citations with no discussion of the book. A search found no sources that help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepanshi Yadav

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

Fails WP:SINGER. Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Nobody has explicitly cited this in this prolonged debate, but it seems clear that WP:TNT applies here. Even a good number of the keep comments advocate for basically starting over, plus there were clearly issues with bludgeoning the discussion, canvassing, and some other issues. This may be a feasible topic for a page, I can't say I see a strong consensus on that matter, but it seems clear we shouldn't have this version of it at all. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of UFOs


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

Article was created by one editor to document, among other things, "institutional countermeasures against the UFO disclosure process". Originally titled Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure, it was moved by a concerned editor to Timeline of UFOs, as a stopgap measure pending further evaluation. Since then, there has been some discussion on the article Talk page from which it seems clear the article creator doesn't understand WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SELCRIT, or why WP:PRIMARY sources (including links and citations to conspiracy-themed material like [16] and [17]) can't be assembled to WP:SYNTHesize an article in order to highlight a particular theme. There has been some peripheral discussion regarding the usefulness of a rewrite to create a generic "UFO Timeline" article, however I don't see any upside, since it would duplicate content already contained in List of reported UFO sightings, UFO conspiracy theories, Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title has been changed once again. Now article title is Timeline of UFOlogy. However the same problems outlined above remain - and a giant WP:LINKFARM has been added. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't acknowledge that the conspiracy-themed materials as you referred to before have been removed. Clearly your arguments are mostly targeting pre-2000s content. They have been "sanitized" to some extent and more non-primary references are added. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is still plenty of conspiracy-themed stuff in the article before and after the 2000s: James Fox's movie, Ross Coulthart's book, Robert Hastings (ufologist) book, etc. None of these things are cited as significant or important by any independent histories of UFOlogy or authoritative sources. The timeline resembles more an RSS feed or content aggregator or web scraper search result than an encylopedic article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references for these are added in. Now most entries have at least one reference. I'd say if any remaining entries don't pass mustard, please delete. I will see if you still disagree on this. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is willing to do it, I very much do see the upside in keeping it as a generic UFO timeline article. It wouldn't be purely duplicative if it incorporated material from several other pages in a different format. Otherwise, no opinion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the edits. The book entries should be reconsidered for sure. Only those that introduced key concepts or conclusions (like Edward Ruppelt, Allen Hynek, and Jacques Vallee), first of its kind (like Charles Fort). This is quite straightforward in the STEM fields I'm familiar with editing, but for ufology there are quite a lot of controversies. I think the importance of books will become less and less from the 2020s on because more peer-reviewed research in the field are getting published, so they could become more justified sources of knowledge. Really, I think the sentiment from other editors have to do with the inclusion or disregard of certain books or accounts in the "old days" of ufology (e.g. pre-2000s).

VaudevillianScientist (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more peer-reviewed research in the field are getting published, so they could become more justified sources of knowledge What peer reviewed research about UFOs is getting published? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you are not aware. Just two examples are listed below for brevity. There are more preprints on the internet under peer reviews. These are the astronomical / astrophysical aspects.
https://doi.org/10.1142%2FS2251171723400068
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49527-x
The field of psychology investigating alien abduction/encounters have peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals from the 1990s already. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See https://ask.un.org/faq/22686. On Dec 13, 1977, the General Assembly of the United Nations with all members present (a "plenary meeting") voted in the majority to consider a request by Granada to establish a UN agency to study UFOs. The following year on Dec 18, 1978 in another plenary meeting, the UN General Assembly voted in the majority in favor of letting interested governments create such an agency within their own governments and report results to the UN. In the first 1977 decision, all member nations were instructed to take the proposal back to their governments to discuss. This made it an important topic, which does not equate to belief or support. 5Q5|✉ 11:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a vote made at the UN General Assembly almost 50 years ago counts as evidence of what governments today recognize to be important topics. In this case, especially, Granada requested that the UN create an agency and the decision amounts to "hey, if you're interested in creating an agency, you go ahead and create one, okay chap? Let me know if you find anything, buddy. Good luck." So even if had taken place yesterday, wouldn't count as evidence. VdSV9•♫ 13:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UFOs/UAPs are now recognized as an aviation safety issue by at least US, Canada, the EU, Israel, and more recently Japan. You should be following the news, not just assume that the status quo is the same as 10-20 years ago..
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-000318_EN.html VaudevillianScientist (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link you have offered is a single "Question for written answer to the Commission" by one politician named Francisco Guerreiro. It is not evidence that EU Space Law has changed in any way, or that "UFOs/UAPs are now recognized as an aviation safety issue" in the countries you suggest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's this one https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2024-0194_EN.html
This is now a motion and still needs probably a year if not more to become legislation. The fact that this is formally discussed in the EU parliament in a formal conference is an indication people are taking it seriously. It only happened in Feb-March 2024. The first link just tells you that the event took place.
For Canada, this is the governmental project https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/science/en/office-chief-science-advisor/sky-canada-project VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...still needs probably a year if not more to become legislation. The fact that this is formally discussed in the EU parliament in a formal conference is an indication people are taking it seriously. Dozens and dozens of parliamentary motions are put forth each year, and only a fraction are notable. Maybe you are convinced that this motion will probably result in legislation and the mere fact that someone mentioned it is an indication people are taking it seriously...however Wikipedia needs a WP:RS that we can attribute for this analysis and opinion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The typical time for a motion to be formally approved/rejected in the EU parliament is a few months to a few years, so the discussion here would rest on the likelihood of a future event. I don't intend to prove this point further but in my timeline only that the EU conference happened was mentioned. I don't believe you work or worked in the EU parliament so the argument here is unnecessary. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL is what matters here. We aren't going to speculate on future legislation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the starting point here is to prove importance, which doesn't need something to be passed into law as a proof. The UN in 1977 did adopt decisions to investigate UFOs, "Establishment of an agency or a department of the United Nations for undertaking, co-ordinating and disseminating the results of research into unidentified flying objects and related phenomena". It didn't come to fruition in the end.
In the US, the Federal Aviation Administration has regulations on UFO/UAP reporting, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap9_section_8.html VaudevillianScientist (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really does. As pointed out multiple times, things get done by motion all the time and wind up being immaterial. Motions existing is not a valid argument of notability. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do follow the news, especially closely on this topic, and have no idea what you're talking about. The only "aviation safety issue" I have seen regarding UFOs lately is lots of pilots seeing Starlink flares and not knowing what they are. And then there're those embarrassing displays being done at the US Congress, with cranks and frauds "whistleblowing" some fanciful hearsay, but none of that amounts to "the government recognizing" anything. I wasn't "assuming" anything, I was responding to the evidence being given for a claim that, as far as I can tell, is false. VdSV9•♫ 20:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Under the new title, this is a theoretically notable subject. UFOlogy is a real thing, and it has developed over time. There have been major events that have shaped it. It should be possible to create this timeline. However, it would need to be constructed from sources which allow us to judge the significance of an event. Those sources will be histories of UFOlogy that place events in context and allow us to sift the significant ones from the insignificant ones. An event cannot be placed on this timeline just because it happened. That way lies only original research. An ideal source would say something like "In 1993, the release of the TV show The X Files caused a surge in public interest in UFOs" (I don't know if that's true, it's just an example of the kind of evidence that would justify putting an event on this list). If someone can make an argument that such sources exist and are of sufficient quality and number that we could build an article around them, then I would be happy to keep this article, but if such sources are not forthcoming, then the article is moribund. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair statement. I'm open to discussions about which entries to keep as some of the editors have already done. For entries whose influence are not immediately recognized, I would use something that came up much later. This applies to many pre-2000s entries. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but severely Prune Listing when governments created organizations to investigate UFOs, or make official comments about them, makes sense. Mentioning a YouTube podcast about UFOs makes no sense at all. There have been a large number of books published about this, and some have their own articles since they get reviewed, that doesn't mean they are notable to the study of UFOs. Listing popular entertainment media that just has UFOs in it makes no sense, nor even documentaries about it since that's just entertainment. Dream Focus 04:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the podcast. I previously consider it as a form of data collection and Andy's podcast was the first of its kind. I kept the History channel documentary because that's the first place where the five observables were introduced. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should review WP:RSPHISTORY - the History Channel is not a reliable source. Specifically because of things like UFO "documentaries." Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably want to investigate that specific point before passing judgements. I'm aware of history channel's spotted reputation, but the information there has no bearing on the existence/non-existence of UFOs/UAPs. They are cited academic writings as the first mention of the five observables for characterizing UFOs/UAPs. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have posted this message on the talk page of the article, it was in response to several conversations I (and others) have been trying to have with Vaudevillian Scientist. I'm reproducing my message here as I know it will disappear when the article is deleted. "You don't seem to understand VS. Look at this timeline submission you just edited "2010 August - Leslie Kean published her book UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record'". Leslie Kean is Wikipedia notable, but her book is not. The media does not recognize it as a book worthy of them writing about, so why are you adding it to the timeline? You seem to think this is an important work. You are doing original research which is not allowed. You are deciding what should be on the timeline, you are deciding what is important to this topic. Clearly the wider world does not find this important or notable enough to single it out and focus their limited time on. This is what I'm trying to explain. You are the sole arbitrator of what to include. Wikipedia just can't allow an article for Vaudevillian Scientist's list of most important moments in UFO history, that is what a personal website is for. We have asked you over and over and you are not getting it. I'm sorry as I see you have committed a lot of time working on this timeline and I see you are continuing to fuss over it, but it is a failed attempt. To keep throwing more and more content at it, when it wasn't thought through in the first place and you have ignored our concerns is not a good use of your time (in my opinion) We have all been there VS, we are so focused on our vision of things we can't see that it's not going to remain. It's a painful lesson, but it is a lesson. I will be voting delete in the AfD discussion because of this reason. " Sgerbic (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reasoning is very flawed. Kean's wiki bio did list the book, it didn't mention the book to a great extent because nobody had the time to write about it there. Wikipedia is an evolving enterprise and most of the articles are far from complete (whatever that means). Her book is actually featured on major serious venues for UAP studies or public events since the mid-2010s. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning is my reasoning which I have clearly articulated here. Kean's book does not have a Wikipedia article which is what I stated, "nobody had the time to write" looks like a lot of time is being eaten up here in this discussion and fussing around with an article that is up for AfD. You still aren't getting it, it is clear that YOU think things are notable so therefore they are notable. Wikipedia does not work that way, we need RS to prove that things are notable. Telling me her book has been mentioned in places is not helping your argument, if it is so notable then write the Wikipedia article proving it. I'm singling you out VaudevillianScientist because this is obviously your pet project, you are answering every comment here in this discussion and telling us why we are wrong. Take a break and work on something else and let the AfD process work. There will be an answer in days probably. Sgerbic (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed her book, but i feel sorry for Leslie. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you call me the sole arbiter, there are apparently others who contributed to the editing. Really, this timeline would have been easier to be converted to another format so it can skip the drama of the fringe community. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list appears to be rife with WP:PROFRINGE cruft. Also appears to have issues with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The best this list could likely aspire to is a profringe coatrack. Simonm223 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no original research, everything is mentioned within the references, and they are not synthesized from multiple sources. You seem to try very hard to cook up reasons here. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:VaudevillianScientist - It is neither necessary nor useful to respond to every comment in an AFD, and it does not increase the likelihood of the article being kept. The closer should base their close on strength of arguments, but that is not the same as length of arguments. See the essay cautioning against bludgeoning. You are being cautioned against bludgeoning this AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable subject, could do well with some improvements like better sourcing and maybe removing all the book publications or clear criteria for these as Rjjiii notes. Likewise, issues with the title can also be addressed without deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Prototyperspective (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. See here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair note but I'd also like to note that I would have most likely found this AfD also without that note since before the user page comment I already found out about the article (because of a wikilink) and intended to keep an eye on it. Furthermore, I find the practice of posting UAP-related AfDs to the Fringe noticeboard more problematic (as it involves more than 1 contributor and occurs regularly) and also canvassing but we can disagree. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For whoever closes this discussion, please note that while it has been open it has experienced several violations of on-Wiki WP:CANVASSING by VaudevillianScientist. Those violations include: this, which is less an attempt at dispute resolution (no other editors were even listed) than a canvass attempt; this and this, with both containing the same canvassing request: If you guys think it's necessary, could you save it [the Timeline of UFOs article] by voting in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of UFOs?; and this, which is easily interpreted as an attempt (a successful one, too) to canvass a like-minded editor. Lastly, an off-Wiki canvassing attempt has been reported here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not limited to Twitter posts only. I've also found some off-wiki canvassing on Reddit. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I would have noticed this AfD anyway also without the user notifying me just likely at a slightly later point. I don't know why the user asked could you save it instead of just informing the relevant WikiProject about it, that's not okay but also not a big issue I think. Moreover, I see an issue of canvassing by posting about AfDs (or at least AfDs about UAP subjects) to the Fringe theories noticeboard. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People have complained about posting to FTN before, but so far the community sees nothing wrong with a neutral post to a relevant noticeboard. It is not considered canvassing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is that you were directly canvassed by the article's creator. In your own words, that is not okay because it violates a WP guideline. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The general opinion of the fringe noticeboard on any UAP-related subject is well-known. In contrast, my one-user opinion on AfDs of such articles apparently was not known to this user. In the guideline it says Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions but it seems like the user only notified one user which is limited. Moreover, notifying users with no significant connection to the topic at hand seems discouraged at that guideline while I do have a connection with that subject in that I have extensively researched the sciency part of it and the user seems to have notified me because of that (he said because I uploaded some image from some UAP study). I think that people literate in a certain topic are of special relevance and improve the overall quality of debates on the subject and that notifying them is consistent with the guideline. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A noticeboard is just a noticeboard and has no "general opinion"s. Frankly, as someone who watches the fringe noticeboard, there are often heated disagreements among the regular page watchers there. There is some truth that the sort of people who watch the noticeboard are also the sort of people who tend to be skeptical about claims of UFOs. However that's a self-selection bias. Nothing stops pro-UFO people from watching and participating on that noticeboard if they so choose. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, JoJo Anthrax, those who want to post off-Wiki have their free choice. They are not me. You are trying to excuse people without proof. On Wikipedia I posted save if it's necessary not forcing people to do anything. The fact that I didn't include other authors on the dispute resolution post is because I didn't find where to put them in the first place. I clearly have missed a step filling in the form. Posting on other topic boards is a suggestion offered to me at the dispute resolution noticeboard. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concept of a 'timeline' isn't an independently notable one for this topic, and what we have here is an indiscriminate list with no clear inclusion criteria, which largely duplicates existing articles and lists. - MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to AfD closer. The article has been saved in the Internet Archive here. 5Q5|✉ 13:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note VaudevillianScientist has been blocked for one month, and will no longer be able to participate in this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:POVFORK. The article is essentially a WP:PROFRINGE list of events given in support of Ufology from the perspective of a believer. It removes those events outside of critical context by essentially not engaging with any relevant skepticism/criticism. A prose history of Ufology could better present these events in necessary context so as to maintain a WP:NPOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Kamenčík

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

His playing career is/was mostly convinced to lower leagues and lasts/lasted a total of 920 minutes so far. I have searched his name in conjunction with *any club he has played for* and "site:.sk", but couldn't find any WP:SIRS. All I found are passing mentions in match reports (e.g. Sport Aktuality, SME, Teraz) and squad list U15 call-up as well as paywalled rumor. Not to be confused with the more notable Michael Krmenčík, who was also born in 1993 but has a different nationality. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of colleges affiliated to the Gauhati University. Owen× ☎ 14:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. B. Deorah College

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found, so the subject fails to meet GNG, and thus also fails WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 14:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. No support for deletion. Feel free to move this page and Low (band) to more distinct titles. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low (duo)

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

Fails WP:BAND. This is a band whose album was never released. Most of the article depends on sourcing from the memoir of the guitarist, a WP:PRIMARY source. Popcornfud (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Mihaylov

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

Mihailov played a mere few seconds in the league and 6 minutes in the cup prior to disappearing. The best sources found are Novsport, Varna 24 and Varna Utre, none of which are even close to showing WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One appearance nearly a decade ago does not notability make. Delete. CoconutOctopus talk 13:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Madoyan

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

Played 1 game in the league and 1 game in the cup prior to disappearing. The article also alleges that he played for Armenia U17 at some point. My own searches yielded Cherno More and Varna Utre, neither of which show enough depth for WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. CoconutOctopus talk 13:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dar es Salaam Jazz Band

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

Only one [18] source with a brief mention. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 12:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bomba Jawara

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

Really not sure what to do here. Looks like most of the media references to this person are to this very wikipedia article, and other links reference or duplicate the content here as well. There's this pdf that mentions someone by the same name and this one as well, but otherwise except for one archived link which I will go ahead and convert to a dubious reference, it's unclear what the story is here, so it would be good if people more knowledgeable than I can chime in, and either update or remove this article. It has been unsourced since 2021. It looks like it was unsuccessfully BLPPROD'd here but I think even with that external link as a reference it should qualify for AfD. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shambhala. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Shambhala

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

Seems to be wholly unsourced OR. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shambhala. CoconutOctopus talk 13:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. A7 CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Allam

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

declined and rejected at draft zero independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nobne of the sources in the article is independent, and I can't find even a trivial mention of his name in any reliable independent sources. A case of WP:ADMASQ. --bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom under A7. CoconutOctopus talk 13:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft redirect‎ to List of political parties in India. A delete nomination, a keep, and a redirect might seem to add up to no consensus without enough discussion. However, the keep !voters did not show the other two to be incorrect about dearth of evidence for independent notability. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Gana Parishad

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Davies (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . asilvering (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

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

The article has 13 references, but the issue with them is that many of them aren't reliable sources and/or don't provide significant coverage. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions, like less than 30 words about a Milan release in an issue of Cash Box ([19], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Çoruh. asilvering (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksu Dam

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

I cannot find enough recent sources to show it notable. There are other rivers with the same name. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of senior members of the Privy Council (United Kingdom)

List of senior members of the Privy Council (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlike the Father of the House, there is no such designation as a senior privy counsellor, or a senior member of the Privy Council, as denied by the Lord President in 2009. This article appears to be a list of longest serving privy counsellors, so I would not say the content is utterly original research (it can be verified with a list of all privy counsellors), but there is still no good reason to create such a list. The article is linked from succession boxes of articles contained in the list, of which I would say we should remove those as well. ネイ (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dynasty

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

I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Richardson

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balkees Jarrah

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

BLP of a human rights lawyer sourced mainly to statements she has made, comments she has offered and interviews she has recorded. Lacks independent in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of oilfield service companies. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments so far? Initially the article may look like it has significant content. However firstly a lot of it reads like promotional press release content from the company itself and secondly much is unsourced and even the references themselves do not meet the requirements.

Edit:Removed unsourced content - Imcdc Contact 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 04:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club of Budapest

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

No proof of notability per WP:ORG PtQa (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ Godzilla: Monster of Monsters. There was no consensus to keep, redirect or merge Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Monster of Monsters

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

Fails WP:NGAME and likely falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Summary-only description of the game, with only one reference, which is about the creepypasta, not the game itself. The rest of the article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, most of which are about the creepypasta, which I would argue is more notable, though it probably still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nothing at all on JSTOR. Should redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Similar issues to MoM, this time with no references at all, also fails NGAME, with nothing at all on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR. Proposing same redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bagmati Province Cricket Association

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reason,

Gandaki Province Cricket Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karnali Province Cricket Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Koshi Province Cricket Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lumbini Province Cricket Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Madhesh Province Cricket Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sudurpashchim Province Cricket Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As per nom and in all cases put forward.
Shrug02 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 00:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot.com

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

I can see a substantial number of articles covering their expansions and deals, but these articles lack in-depth coverage of the subject. They appear promotional or sponsored, with the coverage being trivial and not significant enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not all sources appear to be primary. Even though some major platforms quote the company official website, but there appear to be notability of this online casino on high-stake platforms like CNBC, Bloomberg, Common Wealth Beacon, Sports Business Journal, and several other news platforms. Suffices WP:GAME. 185.233.164.136 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — 185.233.164.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Weak notability, however article can be further sourced with reliable, third party sources and can be categorised under stubs.
Pjermihov (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet of Rpgea, see this. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Downes

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

Would not qualify for NPOL. If qualified for NACADEMICS, would need some sources to support that, which I'm not seeing. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

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

Despite its creation by a blocked sockpuppet, specifically User:Bhusungk, this political party was founded this year and has not yet participated in any elections. The article currently fails to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As a newly established regional political organization, it has not made notable contributions to regional or national political landscapes. Most sources are centered on initial news coverage reporting the party’s formation by a well-known actor, lacking substantial analysis or depth regarding the party’s policies, actions, or influence. There is no indication that the party has engaged in any significant political activities or initiatives that would establish its importance. Additionally, no reliable sources provide evidence of public or political recognition or electoral impact that would qualify it as a noteworthy political entity.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just because the party has not participated in any elections, doesn't make it less notable, the party was created 9 months ago from a 15 years old philanthropic fan club, which did participate in an local election, especially since the recent massive political conference, TVK has already been established to be notable party in Tamil Nadu politics, as it was created by a very popular actor in India, also already got millions of memberships, the mainstream media has been covering everything, the article is supported with lots of reliable sources with significant coverage meeting the criterias of WP:GNG, and they have become more active in the past months with announcements of policies and resolutions and will probably be actively engaging in more political activities and campaign for the 2026 election. Yarohj (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that's true
    I agree to the point 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yarohj: While TVK has gained attention due to its high-profile celebrity leader, actor Vijay, and its recent political conference, the article may still fall short of meeting WP:GNG. Most coverage thus far has focused on the party's formation and media events, rather than deep, independent analysis of its policies or political influence​. While membership numbers and media attention are notable, the political impact of TVK will only become clearer once it participates in elections. — MimsMENTOR talk 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is enough and more evidence to prove that this is a political party with a massive public base
But I disagree the need to be deleted as it is a party created by a well known personality in India and has a high chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections by a high margin and a chance of forming a state government 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Predictions of its electoral success are speculative, the party’s actual impact will only be clear once it participates in elections. Previous attempts by other celebrities to enter politics in Tamil Nadu, like Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, did not lead to significant political success. While the party's future potential is acknowledged, it does not yet meet the criteria for notability based on current available information. — MimsMENTOR talk 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (for now): I am not casting a strong delete vote, but I do support drafting the article, as it falls under WP:TOOSOON. Given its growing popularity and potential significance within the Indian political landscape, I believe there is a strong likelihood that the article will meet the GNG in the near future. Let me list out my point of view on the article.--— MimsMENTOR talk 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The party has not yet participated in any elections. This means that its impact on the political landscape is still to be fully realized. The article mainly cites initial news reports about the party’s formation and its ideological stance, with most coverage focusing on the widely acclaimed and highly honoured actor's background as a celebrity and the announcement of his intentions for political reform. While the article includes substantial media coverage, most of the references appear to be centred around the announcement and some early speeches, rather than detailed analysis or critical coverage of the party's policies or activities.
  2. WP:GNG requires significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, including substantial analysis or reporting. At this stage, the coverage of article is mainly superficial, reflecting media interest but lacking deep journalistic inquiry into its policies or broader political influence. For that reason, the article fall short in meeting the WP:GNG.
  3. Finally, while the party’s registration with the Election Commission is underway, its full impact on Tamil Nadu's political scene will not be apparent until it participates in the upcoming elections (like the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections). Until then, it remains an emerging entity without substantial political achievements.--— MimsMENTOR talk 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about "participating in any elections, impact on the political landscape, detailed analysis or critical coverage of the party's policies or activities, party’s registration with the Election Commission, full impact on Tamil Nadu's political scene and substantial political achievements" are not policy based or required criteria under GNG. GNG sources are not evaluated based on personal preferences. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising that you consider the points I raised as "personal preferences" rather than recognizing them as general principles that apply to all establishments seeking to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The points I discussed are entirely focused on aligning with the guidelines outlined in GNG, and are not based on subjective preferences. They are intended to reflect the standard requirements for notability, which are consistent across all articles under said category. — MimsMENTOR talk 19:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure they are consistent across all articles under said category? From a glance, I can see that many parties listed in Category:Political parties established in 2023 and Category:Political parties established in 2024 have only announced their participation or have only recently created their parties. It still looks more like a personal preference than a general principle. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I stand by my comments. Are you confident that all the articles in the categories you mentioned fully comply with the guidelines? Have you reviewed any of them? or were discussions held to retain the articles and considered eligible for inclusion? and I notice that very few of these articles actually have reliable sources to support their notability. I encourage you to present counterarguments specifically addressing GNG, rather than listing other articles that may or may not have passed the notability guidelines. About the party in question, it is important to assess whether it truly meets the criteria for inclusion based on its current status and available coverage. Let's focus on the application of the guidelines, rather than on other cases that may not be directly relevant. And If you believe the article meets the GNG criteria, please provide a detailed explanation of how it qualifies. — MimsMENTOR talk 19:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If other cases are not relevant here, why did you reply above with "Previous attempts by other celebrities to enter politics in Tamil Nadu, like Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, did not lead to significant political success."? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some users argue that this article should remain because it was founded by a well-known actor in India and claim the party has a strong chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections and potentially forming a state government, on the basis of only "popularity". However, this is purely speculative and falls under WP:FUTURE and that is why I referenced the political involvement of two similarly popular actors, to highlight that fame alone does not guarantee political success or notability. — MimsMENTOR talk 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not seem to have sufficient content that would justify a separate article, the text about the ideology of the party can be merged into the actor's article. I think it violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDB since most of the arguments in favour of keeping the article can be seen as a indiscrimnate collection of information/news regarding the announcements and proceedings of the party. Xoocit (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This subject passes WP:GNG as it has substantial, reliable and independent coverage that highlights Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam’s formation, leadership and significant public interest. There is also indepth reporting from its formation to the present, beyond routine announcements. There is no specific requirement for a political party to participate in an election to be notable under Wikipedia standards and currently, there are around 12 reliable, independent sources providing indepth coverage across various points in time, not limited to a single event, which is more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG and the WP:SIRS check. WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NOTDB do not apply here, as the sources provide substantial analysis and detailed coverage of the subject, and the impact on culture/society is evident, with almost all sources being full length articles discussing and analyzing TVK. Moreover, we have around 35 English language sources and several native language sources that have not yet been added to the article. Given that the subject has a median of ~5,000 page views, which I believe likely places it higher than 90% of Wikipedia articles, deletion does not seem appropriate at this time. While deletion might have been plausible if the subject was discussed in February 2024, it is no longer relevant now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far. Is a merge to Vijay (actor) a reasonable way to address the WP:TOOSOON concerns?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Striking my previous vote to delete. While some coverage appears superficial or promotional, primarily gaining attention due to the actor who founded the party, I have found significant, independent, and reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject’s formation, ideological stance, and activities. Reputable sources like The Hindu, India Today, New Indian Express, and Economic Times collectively passes WP:SIGCOV and so WP:GNG. A merge or redirect to Vijay (actor) could also be a reasonable option, but I no longer see a reason for deletion.--— MimsMENTOR talk 11:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient coverage in some sources for the page on Indian regional political party to pass WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: High volume of sources; I believe GNG is met here, agree with Jeraxmoira. GrabUp - Talk 13:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yagyavalkya Institute of Technology

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

Hardly to meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The second relisting admin's question went unanswered. Answer would have helped. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --woodensuperman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new iteration of Anchor Bay Entertainment with the goal to curate a new library of films for distribution, projects that range from new release genre films, undiscovered treasures, cult classics, and remastered catalog releases.

(Bloody disgusting!: https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3800174/anchor-bay-entertainment-label-resurrects-with-new-horror/)

See list of articles in Variety; https://variety.com/t/anchor-bay-entertainment/

the company’s trademark to reboot it and release genre films and cult favorites, after Anchor Bay was included in Starz’s 2016 sale to Lionsgate.

(Variety; https://variety.com/2024/film/news/anchor-bay-entertainment-cursed-in-baja-1236078418/

The only thing that could be discussed imv is whether this can be merged back into the article, and I don't think that, sizewise, it should.
Also see GBooks where individual or grouped releases by AC as a project are covered; and open, New Blood: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Horror. (2021) University of Wales Press, p. 115.
Just having a brief look, seeing it's a list and dismiss it as "Listcruft" is certainly not enough. Yes, there's work to be done. But that's not a reason for deletion.Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the sources seem to indicate the topic of the list was covered as a set, meeting Wikipedia:NLIST, by the way. Mushy Yank (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I must insist that this is textbook WP:NOTCATALOG. As I mention above, giving examples of individual notable releases in the main article is encyclopedic. Listing every release WP:INDISCRIMINATEly is not, as you can see from the large number of precedents in the other discussions I have mentioned. --woodensuperman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
giving examples of individual notable releases is not what I did (your question above, on the other hand, was about one particular film's release...). The large number of AfDs you listed may or may not be comparable with the present one; but that does not change the fact that my point is that this list is encyclopaedic in my view as offering a timeline of the history of the release of rediscovered film and the sources mentioned by me are meant to prove just that (the quotes are about the topic of the list as a set not about the individual entries and just read the page 115 of New Blood and other GBooks hits, please, thank you). I'm leaving it that that because I have the feeling that I am repeating myself here. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a more substantial rationale for why this doesn't meet WP:NLIST? I see we have a lot of precedent here, but that's mostly just people saying "WP:NOTCATALOG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iida Yoshitake

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

Article has remained unsourced for 18 years. No indication that sources exist or that this person is notable per guidelines. Original creator of this article was banned and confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Wozal (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As per Miminity, and 4meter4, google books throws up lots of snippet views of sources (annoyingly though not in sources my uni sign in gives me access to to be able to comprehensively quote). He’s a fairly well known figure in the period (I’ve been to the island he helped invade, and the local history museum had like a whole video presentation about his part in the battle), and I’m honestly surprised I couldn’t turn any academic stuff up in English. As per Mccapra, the Japanese wiki has sources listed, so taken all together, there’s a strong presumption that sufficient sources in the world, which is the applicable standard, whether or not they are cited in the article as currently written.
Absurdum4242 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to New York State Public High School Athletic Association. I see a clear consensus to Merge All. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1 (NYSPHSAA)

Section 1 (NYSPHSAA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Section 2 (NYSPHSAA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Section 3 (NYSPHSAA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Section 8 (NYSPHSAA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a directory. These are also largely redundant with lists such as List of high schools in New York (state) or categories like Category:High schools in Albany County, New York etc. I'd support moving this information to a category structure (High schools in NYSPHSAA class A, high schools in NYSPHSAA section whatever, etc.) but I don't think any individual section is notable enough to justify getting its own Wikipedia page. Apocheir (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With a 17 year history to back me up, I expect nothing but bad faith from deletionists. Maybe this NOM will prove me wrong. If merged, I might expect an incomplete list. If the full list is added I expect a follow up tag complaining the article is too large followed by efforts to sneakily remove the content without discussion. I have never seen a merge ultimately not result in a loss of content. The NOM already mentioned the overlap with List of high schools in New York (state) showing no effort to read the organizational structure is the major difference. So the next illiterate will follow up by just merging to that list and all structure will then be lost. Trackinfo (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I look at further at the article, there are a bunch of the sections that have not been started. When those fill in, this will become much larger. Trackinfo (talk) 05:52, 19 November 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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_November_16
No tags for this post.