Aja viide. Aja lugu.

< December 22	December 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Bay fire

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

Nothing here meets WP:LASTING; upon a search for coverage the only that exists just breaking news-type articles. Cutlass ^Ciera 23:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fire editor and lifelong Bay Area resident here, I feel like this should be deleted as I think there is no WP:LASTING coverage. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not mentioned again in the SF paper archives; did not make the SF Chronicle "10 most read articles" of 2014. Lamona (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. [1] Other fire happening in similar location makes no mention of historic fire. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 09:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of continuous coverage and it is not recorded as an historic fire. Runmastery (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fire with no fatal casualties fails WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:41, 30 December 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 per WP:SNOW. The consensus seems clear that this is far too soon for an article. Prior to the content being changed to point people towards the draft copy, the article was a single paragraph. The draft is more fully fleshed out, so there's nothing to merge into it. This can be moved once it passes NFF, but for now no filming has started. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Odyssey (2026 film)

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

The film hasn't started filming yet, and there's also a more detailed draft for the film that's ready for publishing once the movie starts shooting. KingArti (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this draft available? Jeffy7Jeffy (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is. KingArti (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixed nomination which was malformed and was created at the wrong title. @KingArti: Please be careful when creating new AfDs, you can use the Twinkle gadget which automates the whole process. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, retaining existing draft at Draft:The Odyssey (2026 film) Definitely need more details for this outside casting, but the draft is much stronger. Nate • (chatter) 00:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - We don't need two articles for the same film. See Draft:The Odyssey (2026 film). JohnJacobJHS...HNWMN2 (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support of what? Delete or draftify? 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete or redirect to Christopher Nolan: As an upcoming film, this should not be in the mainspace until filming begins, per WP:NFF. The draft currently exists with plenty of editing history so this should not be moved there to WP:PRESERVE its contents there. This realistically should have been a speedy deletion request rather than an AfD, as this deletion would be uncontroversial, though redirection would probably still be best. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per an obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect: (WP:NFF violation) A draft already exists, so Draftifying this article is unneeded. This article includes no information that isn't already stated in the other draft, so it should just be turned into a redirect to Nolan's filmography.—Mjks28 (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mjks28.★Trekker (talk) 09:43, 24 December 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!} 21:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Pathways

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

magazine tagged for notability since 2009, still almost exclusively primary sources --Altenmann >talk 21:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three primary sources, two now-dead sources, and one passing mention. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Philosophy. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the Telegraph piece, which I can't access, I don't see any evidence of passing WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:16, 29 December 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!} 21:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Culwell

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. All I found was coverage from his high school career (1 and 2). JTtheOG (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Nevada. JTtheOG (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Those newspapers only feature the person in images. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and comments.Go4thProsper (talk) 17:02, 28 December 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!} 21:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenette Maitz

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

Non-notable figure skater. Only competed in two competitions: 1st place (with no other challengers) at the Turkish Figure Skating Championships and 26th place (out of 27 teams, though the 27th team was technically a withdrawal) at the 2010 World Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Turkey, and Pennsylvania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did not see WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Only one result in Google Books which is likely a false positive (A History of Economic Thought, no online access), one result in Google Scholar which is a false positive, one result in Google News which is a one sentence mention. Eight mentions on Newspapers.com, but all are one sentence mentions on skating results or an obituary of a family member. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.Canary757 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:38, 30 December 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. (non-admin closure) Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Tony Edeh

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject, by all means, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Pieces cited are the usual routine coverages expected. No significant coverage anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Finance, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the sources (Leadership, Vanguard, Independent) are reliable under WP:RSNG, it appears that all of them are of passing mention of the subject with no significant coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources in the article are purely for Norrenberger with little or nothing that shows that the subject qualifies for a separate Wikipedia page. Pass mentioned sources do not pass WP: GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ADMASQ. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:24, 24 December 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 Croatian Figure Skating Championships. It looks like much of the content has already been put in the main article but this is a formal Merge in case any editor wants to transfer any additional content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Croatian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Croatian Figure Skating Championships. I will attach all subsequent competitions in this series shortly. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and Croatia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Croatian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per nominator. A glance at the pages shows that they are too unsubstantial for individual pages. Madeleine (talk) 21:25, 23 December 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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohini Mohan Dhar

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

No in-depth coverage of the subject in reference, references given in this article are mostly pdf with just mentions of him, hence I think it fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and West Bengal. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. I have added the references to the talk page of the article and explained a bit about what they are. In addition the editor of this article has a history of trying to add in Family Members. --VViking_TalkEdits 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sigcov in at least three reliable sources.

Noah ^💬 23:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable civil servant/administrator. If he had made significant contributions to the legal field as claimed in the article, it would have been possible to find at least some trace of it somewhere, but I'm not able to do that – and that's the only claim to notability in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM functionary, Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:31, 24 December 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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Doctor Who Cast Members

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

An indiscriminate list (can be considered listcruft) of some of the oldest actors in the Doctor Who series by age. There is no clear relevance between the TV show and age unlike sports and age would have, so this is very trivial. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Entertainment. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But, why is it problematic? Spectritus (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spectritus: My nomination states the article's problems. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be deleted just for lacking sources? In this case, articles are usually just left with a "More sources needed" notice, nothing more. Spectritus (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the ages of those actors, you can just check their Wikipedia/IMDb pages. Spectritus (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMDB is not a reliable source, and notability guidelines for lists and general topics indeed require sourcing. If you have reliable sources that discuss this subject (not individual entries on the list) by all means offer them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page may not be relevant enough to stay. But, the English Wikipedia doesn't consider many websites as "reliable", so it's difficult. And if I may add, I understand it needs to be strict, but the English Wikipedia is way too strict compared to other Wikipedia languages. And it should be understood that if a topic isn't covered by the biggest websites, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Spectritus (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate it for its lack of sources, despite that being an issue (albeit a fixable one). I nominated it because it is an indiscriminate list of some of the oldest actors in the Doctor Who series by age and that there is no clear relevance between the TV show and age. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia, and articles that are very specific but with little relevance when connected such as "List of film actors by favorite color" or "List of celebrities with brown hair" should not be published to Wikipedia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "relevance between the TV show and age" is that it's a show that has been ongoing for a very long time and so, some cast members have lived to a very old age. Spectritus (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who being an old show doesn't make assessing the show's oldest in age actors any less trivial because it's still a collection of facts that aren't directly associated with the topic of the show, making it listcruft. A list of actors of the show along, or its episodes or franchised media, would be counter-examples to listcruft. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a mess of WP:OR. There is no evidence that reliable sources discuss the age of Doctor Who cast members as a subject, so it's a hard WP:GNG/WP:NLIST failure. (I suspect this is a personal research project created after the recent death of Arnold Yarrow, who was reported in the news as the oldest Doctor Who cast member, but that does not mean the entire topic of the age of Doctor Who cast members is notable. And what possible encyclopedic value would this article have beyond trivia, which is one of the many things Wikipedia is WP:NOT?) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, why are there pages for Oldest railroads in North America, Oldest McDonalds restaurant, Oldest Russian derby, Oldest football clubs, Oldest hominids, etc ? Spectritus (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spectritus: Those articles are not comparable to the the nom'd one. The oldest railroads in North America are relevant to the history of railroads on the continent, the oldest McDonald's restaurant is a registered historic place with a designation from the National Park Service, the Oldest Russian derby documents a historic sports event. These are not list articles of something very trivial like the 'Oldest Doctor Who cast members', which is not relevant to the history of the TV program but rather a collection of actors on the show by age. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS named above are not relevant to this article. Listing the ages of actors in a particular series is arbitrary and unsupported by sources establishing notability. There are a million TV shows and movie series out there, and the actors' ages and lifespans are not significant enough or even relevant to the production of the show itself to warrant articles, it's just trivia. Reywas92^Talk 21:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: List clearly has no real relevance. Unless the age of the actors is truly relevant to the TV show, then there is no reason why this list should exist.

Noah ^💬 23:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A trivial nonsensical listing. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could it at least be put in the draftspace instead of being deleted? Spectritus (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it into draft space would be a step towards putting it back into article space. On the basis that the subject can never be encyclopaedic, I would oppose. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It really has nothing to do with the Doctor Who canon itself as it is totally unrelated to when they were in the show or what age they were at the time. All it is is a list of long-living actors who also happened to have a part in Doctor Who during their career. Per nom, it is indiscriminate. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You all have a point. Spectritus (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An INDISCRIMINATE list that does not meet any notability criteria. My thoughts echo those of every voter above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly seems like an indiscriminate list that seems more like a blog than encyclopedic. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to maintain an archive of this list for use on Tardis Data Core, the Wikipedia for Doctor Who. User:Northern Hills.

@Northern Hills:, I copied and pasted it on one of my sandbox pages (User:Spectritus/sandbox3). Spectritus (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I will not revert to a former Redirection but if an editor wishes to create a Redirect from this page title, they can act on that wish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Shah

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

The subject of this page does not meet notability standards WP:NBIO and WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Citations are just WP:ROUTINE. Also, this might be a case of article hijacking WP:AHIJACK. The article was originally about cricketer Rishabh Arjun Chandra Shah (born 11 September 1991). In 2021, it was redirected to the List of Durham UCCE & MCCU players. Then, in 2023, the redirection was removed, and the article was recreated as Rishabh Sanjay Shah (born 3 September 1991). Charlie (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination is part of my training and assessment activities at CVA School. Charlie (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This was redirected to List of Durham UCCE & MCCU players, before being WP:AHIJACKed. The article subject post-hijack isn't notable, so the redirect from when it was about a cricketer should be reinstated. AA (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable; neither does the cricketer, and there are other people of the same name who may be more notable than either, so a redlink would be better than a redirect so visitors aren't surprised at landing at a list of student cricketers. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON for now. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:46, 29 December 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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeta Beniwal

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

Not elected to any assembly, not have sufficient in depth coverage in news media, being a president of state commission or president of a district level party post doesn't make way for notability hence fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a civil servant [2], but being a chair of meetings isn't quite notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page with no notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician. RangersRus (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:57, 27 December 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!} 21:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Wolf (pickup truck)

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

As this just seems to be a variant of Alpha Wolf (pickup truck), in fact much of the content is already shared. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, its three separate links to the same page. Wolf Wolf+ and SuperWolf, at least this one seems to have had one working model made. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as article creator It is unclear to me what your rationale for deleting this article is, even with correcting your mistake. The three articles you linked in your comment lead to two unrelated/unnominated articles and one that does not exist. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I made a mistake as there are three links to the same article under different names, however it seems this car has not started production, and most of the sourcing is to one source. So it may not (in fact) be notable. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A car which has not yet started production or has never been mass-produced is not non-notable just for those reasons; it's why Wikipedia has so many articles on canceled or concept vehicles. It's about WP:SIGCOV, and there are six independent sources published between March 2021 and August 2023 being cited in the article and many more of them out there. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many non blog independent sources are there for this? Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, there are six sources cited from non-blog independent automotive news sources from varying dates, which is more than enough to pass significant coverage. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An actual, in-the-metal(is it metal or plastic? anyway-) vehicle that has sufficient sourcing to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing used in the article is primary or non-RS, but some turn up [3], [4]. Should be enough for at least a basic article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 23 December 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 Alpha Motor Corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Ace

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

It has been 4 years, and not even one has been made, this is why we have wp:not, it failes this for many reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as article creator Which reasons specifically are why this article fails? If one of them is WP:NCRYSTAL, this refers to unverifiable content. There was a speculative line in the article that could not be verified by its footnote, so I've removed it, but the rest of the article is sourced properly. That aside, canceled, upcoming, or prototype/concept products can have articles as long as there's significant coverage. I don't agree that the content should be deleted, but I think merging the articles for Alpha Jax and Alpha Saga—which are two vehicles based directly off this one—into the nominated article would make sense. Either that, or merging all three into Alpha Motor Corporation. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alpha Motor Corporation would be OK, as at this time they do not exist. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alpha Motor Corporation as WP:TOOSOON. Merging (if any, as the target already mentions the subject) can be done from history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 23 December 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. czar 17:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Sinclair

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

There doesn't seem to be enough independent, secondary sources that discuss Sinclair in depth. Badbluebus (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Law, and Canada. Badbluebus (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage of this individual in news media, simply being a subject matter expert in court cases isn't quite enough without coverage discussing the individual. Sourcing now is largely to court cases. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds promotional more than anything, not to mention tagged for COI. Not sure what makes her worthy of an article as opposed to others in her occupation. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and comments.Go4thProsper (talk) 17:05, 28 December 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. czar 17:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Colastraw

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

All the sources fail WP:GNG and 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Botswana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, clear failure of MUSICBIO and I cannot find any sources online that lead me to believe that the subject may pass GNG.
Noah ^💬 23:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears PROMO as well. No news sources or any non-primary sourcing used in the article. I don't find anything extra we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awesome name, but sadly this is a WP:RESUME. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMUSIC and article reads like a resume. Sources are either primary or press releases. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Total failure of WP:NMUSICBIO, reads entirely like a promotional article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. WP:ADMASQ. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:40, 28 December 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 List of cancelled PlayStation 3 games. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Race (video game)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; only notability is its announcement and subsequent cancellation, with sources being mainly on these two details. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some sources. Timur9008 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not convince me it has notability as a standalone article. There seem to be some mentioned links in the previous AfD, but they are permanently dead - oops. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the consensus and sources found in the first AFD. Not sure how hard the above looked but they're easily found, and some cover things beyond the simple announcement and cancellation, like it's poor reception prior to its cancellation. ~~Only the MTV source appears to be dead, but it still existed at one point, and~~ I even found a few new sources, so there's enough present to write an article around.

There's enough to support an article here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability standard is much higher for cancelled games, but there is reliable sourcing as above and in the earlier AfD about the gameplay details, development, and even some early feedback from outlets that they weren't getting good vibes from the game. This deserves to be kept. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sergecross73 did post sources here, but all are passing mentions or non-significant coverage, interviews (WP:PRIMARY) or routine announcements as regurgitated press releases. Really not convinced about the notability of this game at all. If we took this as meeting WP:GNG, then every upcoming/vaporware/cancelled video game ever would be notable and have its own article too. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cancelled PlayStation 3 games as an alternative to deletion - The sources are short announcements, not SIGCOV. And one of them is an interview which counts as a primary source. --Mika1h (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree with some of the assessments above. I've found the MTV source, which is neither routine nor short - its a pretty deep dive. MTV is an RS, and its written by Stephen Totillo, an experienced video game journalist. I also disagree that the coverage is simply routine - the Wired coverage talks about leaked footage, and the poor reception it got, which is anything but routine. And the rest - I don't agree with the label "passing mention" when they're articles entirely dedicated to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The MTV article is not "independent of the subject", the writer is recounting an interview and a press release. Regarding the other sources, I guess what constitutes "significant coverage" is subjective but these news announcements satisfy the "directly" part of GNG but not the "in detail" part. They are basically glorified press releases, they are reciting what Sony has told them. The Wired coverage: Yes, it has critical analysis but it's one paragraph, is that 50 words? No way that is "in detail". Again, SIGCOV is subjective but that is setting the bar really low. --Mika1h (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's not quite right, the MTV article is reporting on someone else's interview, and covers other things, like the game's leak on GameTrailers, its poor reception, etc. It's incorrect to try to handwave that away as some sort of interview/press release, its more nuanced than that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cancelled PlayStation 3 games (though there isn't much to be added): Doing some in-depth search, MTV's coverage at [5] is decent, but that's where it all stops. Based on my comment above and seeing Mika1h's proposal, this is where I end up. There is simply not enough significant coverage of the game - cancelled projects can be extensively covered, even lesser known ones like Heist (video game). This just doesn't meet WP:GNG, but an alternative to deletion is always preferred. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I reviewed the above sources and most of them are standard churnalism (brief, dependent on quotes from developers, mainly announcements with little production content) with the exception of the Engadget and MTV interviews, which are too based on primary source content to "count" towards independent notability. There isn't enough secondary source content to write and article that does justice to the topic, so merge it to the list as a viable search term. I would expect there to be more coverage of its cancellation, legacy, or production artifacts if this was a noteworthy work. czar 06:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cancelled PlayStation 3 games. The video game may just about meet GNG (but many sources that are provided here or in the article, even if reliable, are not independent/just passing mentions) but since there's a suitable place to put info about this game elsewhere, its better to put it there rather than to have its own article. JuniperChill (talk) 13:12, 30 December 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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici

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

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sri Lanka and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gscholar brings up two papers this person wrote, but I'm not sure that's enough for an academic notability pass. I don't see any reviews of this person's other books either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have added further information and references - satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. You added references that the subject wrote, but none of it is about the subject himself. There is no evidence that he is widely regarded or cited by peers, originated a new concept, authored a body of work that itself is notable, or created a work that has been regarded as significant. cyberdog958^Talk 15:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more input from the community on the recent edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The several archived reviews of the biography of Fleming in the article show that that book is notable. I picked one other book at random to search at the British Newspaper Archive and immediately found this review. I won't bother looking for more, since this author clearly meets the GNG, but I suspect many more sources exist. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV. I only see two reliable AND independent sources that review his work here and there. I'm looking for one more. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several reviews on JSTOR; eg Fleming book in BMJ JSTOR 25394369, Science Progress JSTOR 43415178; Nobel winners in Books Abroad JSTOR 40114429; German scene in International Affairs JSTOR 2608910. Togther with others found elsewhere appears sufficient for WP:AUTHOR. (@Bearian:) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 23 December 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. Nominating user has since been blocked as a CU-confirmed sock. Any user in good standing is free to re-nominate at any time. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudraneil Sengupta

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

The article on Rudraneil Sengupta does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies, as it lacks adequate independent and reliable sources to substantiate the subject's significance. While the article attempts to document his career and achievements, it is insufficiently supported by verifiable evidence from secondary sources providing substantial coverage of his life and work.

Of the references cited in the article, only the first citation meets the criteria for a reliable source. The rest of the references merely mention Sengupta in passing, failing to offer independent or in-depth analysis of his contributions. This is not enough to establish notability under Wikipedia's standards, which require significant, independent coverage from credible sources.

A quick Google search further confirms the lack of independent coverage. Most search results are either related to Sengupta's published works or are affiliated with organizations he has worked for. There is no significant independent recognition or detailed media coverage, which is essential to meet notability guidelines.

The article also claims that Sengupta has received awards such as the Ramnath Goenka Award and the SOPA Award, but these claims are not supported by verifiable sources within the article or by any independent third-party confirmation. Without proper citations, such assertions cannot be deemed reliable or sufficient to demonstrate his notability.

Much of the content appears to be derived from primary sources or editorialized interpretations of his career. Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality policies require that biographical content rely on independent, third-party sources to ensure reliability.

In conclusion, this article fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and standards for Reliable Sources. As a result, I am nominating this article for deletion. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG based on available sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two of the five citations have URLs that go to top level pages, not pages that mention Sengupta. The other three citations are primary sources. There are a couple of statements in the article that are not supported by citations. I've added inline cleanup tags to assist the creator of the article. GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 24 December 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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evaristo and Sons Sea Transport Corp.

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

Fails WP:NCORP. (NPP action) C F A 13:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides failing WP:NCORP, the article is completely unsourced. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice. The article has been draftified by Hetupeahelandia while this discussion is open and ongoing. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable within its local context, and I plan to add reliable sources to support its notability soon. Please allow time for improvements.

Pricehissam (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only have until December 30 to do so. Personally, I don't think the company is notable at all. A Google search of the company only return blog and primary websites, which are not enough to establish its notability. It needs independent and reliable sources to establish notability, and to also verify the information in the article since it is completely unsourced. AstrooKai (Talk) 05:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this company passes WP:NCORP, within its local context or elsewhere. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 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 closure.‎. The nominator, affiliated with the subject, is in a conflict of interest when proposing to delete this article which portrays the subject in a very unflattering light. The discussion is therefore procedurally closed, but any uninvolved editor may renominate the article for deletion. Sandstein 20:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothstack

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

Post-PROD undeletion; article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. All coverage based on a single incident. As disclosed, I am an employee of the company. TimJohn67 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Nominator has a clear paid COI with the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure running a predatory company is the stuff of notability here. Could be seen as a form of PROMO to whitewash these issues? Regardless, I I can only find PR items, nothing helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nom is an employee of the subject and is being paid to delete the article. I don't think we should acquiesce to the company's desires. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 23 December 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. Sandstein 20:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McLelland

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

Lack of notability; article has been tagged as possible nn since creation. Cannot find anything online other than amazon, abebooks & the like, none of which establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Photography, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG guidelines, lacking RS citations.Go4thProsper (talk) 17:04, 28 December 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. Arguments are made to keep, and the nomination is invalid on its face as it was made by a now CU-confirmed sock account El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Reley

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Many references cited in the article are either promotional or lack credibility. Citations 13, 14, and 15 are press releases, which are inherently self-promotional and do not establish notability. Additionally, citations 16 and 17 are from Amazon, a platform unsuitable for verifying the significance of an individual's achievements. The article also appears promotional in tone, emphasizing awards and achievements without adequate independent verification. A neutral point of view is essential on Wikipedia, and the content here violates this principle. Furthermore, a preliminary Google search fails to uncover substantial, independent coverage of Pawan Reley, further undermining claims of notability. Without credible, independent sources to substantiate the subject's achievements and influence, this article fails to demonstrate that the individual meets the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi, Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page meet the criteria under both WP:NJUDGE and the WP:GNG. The article is supported by significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that demonstrate the subject’s notability within the legal field. The inclusion of verifiable information about their legal career, achievements and books further supports their notability. As such, the article fulfills the requirements for both notability guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info I wanted to clarify that I have added references related to the book mentioned in the article, including links to where the book is actually available. It is important to include such book references as they provide verifiable sources for the information. The source from Amazon is valid for verifying the book’s availability, and it helps to substantiate the claims made in the article. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improve your English mate 2A00:23C5:C05E:EC00:F4C0:EA5C:FA3A:BE07 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! But i believe my writing meets the standards of clarity and understanding WP:NONENG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 06:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks to recent improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 25 December 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. czar 17:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monk (hardcore punk band)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC per my search for sources. PK650 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Band has released music on Dine Alone Records, a notable Canadian record label. Labelmates include Jimmy Eat World, Wintersleep, and formerly Marylin Manson. See: https://dinealonerecords.com/artists

Band has toured with originators of the 'hardcore punk' genre D.O.A., Single Mothers, and collaborated with Daniel Romano, Liam Cormier - all notable musicians.

Band has been covered by notable media in their respective genre, like New Noise: https://newnoisemagazine.com/interviews/interview-frank-bach-of-monk-talks-rock-ep and No Echo: https://www.noecho.net/band-spotlights/monk-hardcore-band Zxmxbxm (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The label having other artists has no bearing on notability. Point 2 would perhaps be relevant, but I suspect you might be stretching the definition of "touring" and "collaborating", unless you can provide reliable sourcing to the contrary. As for the two media you pointed at, I'll leave subject experts to decide whether these are considered seminal genre magazines, but generally speaking interviews are not given too much weight when it comes to notability discussions for the simple reason that they are not usually fact checked. PK650 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article in New Noise (currently footnote #1) is useful but they have not built any reliable media exposure in multiple sources beyond that one. The other sources currently in the article are either brief softball intros or only mention this band indirectly. I can find nothing else, though the band's bland name and the even blander title of their one release admittedly make searching difficult. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:54, 28 December 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 Aunty Donna. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broden Kelly

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

Article fails to demonstrate relevant reliable sources or meeting of WP:GNG as to why Broden Kelly is notable in his own right as opposed to being a member of Aunty Donna. At present the vast majority of the article is a repetition of information on the article for Aunty Donna itself, which highlights the lack of notability as an individual.

The limited information sourced about him himself outside of Aunty Donna looks to be extended comments from a pair of podcast appearances, those he has an employment relationship with (such as a football club) or from his own personal social media accounts, which fail to demonstrate the requirements of reliable, third-party sources to meet notability.

Article should be Redirected to the Aunty Donna page until such a time notability in his own right can be demonstrated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Australia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd presume redirect given that person is a prominent member of said comedy group so there are reasonable grounds to assume people would search for that name looking for Aunty Donna. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:41, 27 December 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. I'm not seeing a clear consensus here, and the nomination is invalid as it was made by a user now CU-confirmed as a sock. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viveka Nand Sharan Tripathi

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

The article on Justice Vivek Nand Sharan Tripathicontains a large amount of content but lacks sufficient references to establish notability. There are only one citations provided, and a quick search reveals no significant independent coverage or sources proving his notability, which fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless further sources are found establishing notability. "He went to law school" and "he has been in several notable cases" do not give me much hope on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NJUDGE. GNG does not need to be met. C F A 16:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The content meets WP:NPOL, ensuring neutrality and impartiality. WP:GNG does not need to be met if the subject is relevant within a specific context.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found a few sources but will need help with both assessing them and constructing edits (maybe). [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], there are more. Some are about the same controversial court case so more than one source is advisable. Also, the name seems to more commonly written as Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi. Usually I would just go ahead and write tye edits and insert the refs but I'm having an 'off day' as far as pain is concerned, so I'm hoping someone can help? Knitsey (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pending more content. The article says nothing other than he is a judge and one ref just confirms this. The other ref is gone and was not archived — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that a bad thing to have in mainspace? We have 2.3 million stubs already. One sentence is better than nothing at all, and it is much more likely to be improved in mainspace than as a draft. C F A 14:57, 24 December 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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Bharti Sharma

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

The article on Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma lacks verifiable notability, with only two references supporting extensive claims. A quick search reveals no significant independent coverage or landmark achievements, failing Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards for judicial figures. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NJUDGE. GNG does not need to be met. C F A 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He does appear to meet the WP:NJUDGE requirements provided sources exist that support the article text. I have reviewed one of the two sources and it supports some but not all of the clams in the article text. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:NJUDGE to me.Sophisticatedevening]] (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:Honestly the AfDs are a mixed bag - I have weighed in on two of them one as (weak) keep and the other as delete. I would suggest that we should be deciding these AfDs on their merits and not on whatever muck gets raked up on the drama board. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah you're right just thought it was something to consider.Sophisticatedevening (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page meets the criteria under both WP:NJUDGE and the WP:GNG. The article is supported by significant coverage. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:18, 24 December 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) Cavarrone 17:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juba Film Festival

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

Current article is promotional, author has been blocked for copyright violations. I could not find a single source giving SIGCOV that is independent of the subject. Does not appear to be notable. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Africa. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.newsweek.com/juba-identity-south-sudans-first-film-festival-offers-new-image-war-torn-478131; https://www.radiotamazuj.org/en/news/article/first-ever-juba-film-festival-kicks-off (and various articles from the same media outlet); https://www.alwihdainfo.com/Shining-a-spotlight-on-South-Sudanese-film-the-Juba-Film-Festival_a82903.html: and EyeRadio article on the page; https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/fr/newsroom/2309006-2309006 : https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/south-sudan/eu-envoy-commends-annual-juba-film-festival_und_en ; +mentioned in The African Film Industry: Trends, challenges and opportunities for growth. (2021). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), p. 228. That festival is different from usual film festivals, but it seems nonetheless notable. -Mushy Yank. 13:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

Additional potential sources:
Channels TV
CGTN Africa
BBC Radio posted to SoundCloud by Internews
Quartz
Business Ghana
USAID
Action Africa Help
Rainsage (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the page a bit and also added a few other sources: BBC (live blog) ABC News Reuters Rainsage (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion and included as references in the article that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The festival has been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources as pointed out above and evident in the articles current form. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: per Rainsage FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:25, 27 December 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 deleted as G5 by Asilvering. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tse with diaeresis

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

Unsourced article without useful content, was already draftified but recreated by same editor. Doesn't even appear in the List of Cyrillic letters. The same editor created a whole bunch of equally uninformative articles which should be either redirected if there is a good target where they are already mentioned, or deleted.

Fram (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Europe. Fram (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of the articles have any sources or useful information. Made-up characters. Procyon117 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, some of them do appear in the infobox of Cyrillic characters, but imparts no meaningful information as to be completely useless anyways. Procyon117 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Unsourced, and by the creator's own admission, these characters are not routinely used in any recognized languages. Also, none of them exist as Unicode precomposed characters; they just appear to be random combinations of Cyrillic letters and diacritics. Hqb (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete En with acute, O with diaeresis and macron (Cyrillic), U with diaeresis and macron (Cyrillic) (I assume) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All a pointless waste of space. If any of these are used in any language then it might be worthwhile saying which ones. Athel cb (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all fail WP:V, which is a Wikipedia policy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No relevant infos. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:50, 24 December 2024
Delete all since none of the articles have any sources or info. Can't find any of these letters in any sources that are not these articles. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 04:33, 25 December 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. ✗plicit 12:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party royale game

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEO. Could not find nontrivial examples of the term "party royale" being used by reliable sources to describe a distinct genre of game. There's a couple scattered hits here and there of games being described as "party royale", but they're few and far between. Perhaps redirect as a synonym of battle royale game? ~ A412 ^talk! 11:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 11:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new article that consists entirely of original research, just draft-ify? IgelRM (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a newer article has some merit to be draftified. This one appears to have more significant coverage on Fortnite's party royale mode. So, I would be in favor of either the nom's redirect suggestion or draftify. Conyo14 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Agree this is WP:OR where the content precedes the sourcing. There are several games with game modes calling itself Party Royale, but no obvious secondary coverage of the genre as a whole. Draftifying could provide some chance for incubation. As there's no real sourcing provided, a merge/redirect isn't too helpful. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing the needed coverage of this topic needed to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see any possible redirect here either. Let'srun (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accounting schools in Pakistan

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

A mess of a list. No context, no sources. No other country in the world has a "List of accounting schools in ...". Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Lists, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS and WP:IS provided for WP:V. Ref. included is a broken URL. QEnigma talk 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:RS and notable items. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR/WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 08:23, 27 December 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 12:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristal Nell

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

I am unable to find significant or independent coverage of this bridge player to meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. All I can find, except for primary sources (her own league, etc.) is an obituary and a piece that does not go in depth about her. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT) criteria. QEnigma talk 15:51, 24 December 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 01:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaël Campan

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

Mostly primary references. Not enough significant references to meet the notability criteria. - The9Man ^Talk 10:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 23 December 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!} 23:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexious Kuen Long Lee

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

Not enough coverage or significance to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG - The9Man ^Talk 10:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I suggest renaming the article to "Alexious Lee" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), as this name yields several news sources and coverage that could establish notability. Sunbq (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunbq Please provide the references here or add to the article so that others can review and discuss them. - The9Man ^Talk 18:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to the article. Sunbq (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The Bloomberg profile might be something, but the other sources are either not about the subject (just projects he's involved in, with a quote or two) or not independent of the subject. Quick search didn't reveal any in-depth coverage by independent sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:58, 29 December 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!} 07:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sage wall

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

No evidence of sufficient notability, has received no attention in reliable sources. Sources in article are one not independent, one good book that doesn't mention the Sage Wall, and an unreliable (though popular in some circles) source. Fram (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding anything that would establish notability. If RS coverage did exist, this could be covered as a paragraph in Boulder Batholith rather than a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 00:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find independent sources with significant coverage. The existing sources about and around "Saiyar Mori Re" are mostly routine coverage and paid PR/brand content, failing WP:NFSOURCES. I am also unable to find the minimum number of full length reviews, so it fails WP:NFILM entirely. The sources mentioned in the previous XfD are paid PR, as evident from the bylines and reviews from unknown websites/blogs. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this added to the Actors and Filmmakers list? It's a film not a person. -Mushy Yank. 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See precedent AfD and arguments presented by User:DareshMohan, for example. A redirect seems warranted anyway (same comment) so that I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC) [edited to bold an AtD which is pretty standard in such cases][reply]
Freelance journalist/blogger, Brand promoted content and an article from an unknown website with no byline? Can you please read the nomination statement and WP:NFILM guideline once again and consider revising your rationale to a policy based one instead of how you feel about deletion? Here are some more PR articles that they have given out: [13], [14], [15] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please read DareshMohan's argument? Gujarat is not a "country" but I consider the film meets NFILM's inclusionary criterion #3, if you really wish me to provide a link to a guideline. I'll stand by my !vote, if I may. I've added a couple of things to the page, rapidly. -Mushy Yank. 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you have added so far is just brand promoted content, routine coverage and passing mentions with no bylines. Nearly five years on Wikipedia, yet how you interpret WP:NFIC to fit your own views is astonishing.

Here, "distributed domestically in a country" means distributed within India. This film didn't see the light outside Gujarat and we are not maintaining a database of films released in India, but rather of notable films released in India. Comparing WP:NFIC#3's weight of a film being released/distributed domestically in a country is nowhere close to that of a film being distributed within a state. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"didn't see the light outside Gujarat" is an absurd rationale. Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally, comprises multiple industries based on language and regional distinctions. The subject here being included in the Gujarati cinema, though less prominent than its counterparts like Bollywood or Tollywood, is still a significant part of this spectrum. Drawing a comparison between Gujarati cinema and the broader, more commercially dominant segments of Indian cinema is flawed. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:Notability is not a level playing field. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring essays here. If you want to change existing policies, start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films).

The current guidelines only support films that are successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film-producing country. You have contradicted yourself by mentioning "Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally". WP:NFIC#3 does not apply to major film producing countries and if Saiyar Mori Re were a significant part of this spectrum, it would have received reviews in reliable sources. Instead, it only has paid PR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your tone out! this is a discussion space, essays, statements, facts and all are legit here. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems the nominator has completely overlooked sources from TOI and other reputable outlets (which still lack full consensus on reliability). With that, giving an additional consideration and collectively reviewing the coverage's from the sources from TOI, TOI 2, TOI 3, One India and from the Gujarati media: navgujaratsamay, gujaratheadline and abtakmedia as well as the film's feature at the International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 is enough for notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TOI - Interview / Not independent / Pre-release coverage - Jun 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
- One India - Partner content as indicated at the top - July 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
- navgujaratsamay - Press release from trailer launch - Jun 27 (Part of PR)
- gujaratheadline - Same as navgujaratsamay article / Press release from trailer launch - Jun 25 (Part of PR)
- abtakmedia - Same as above / Press release from trailer launch - July 04, 2022
- International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 - Trivial mention / no awards
None of the above news media outlets covered or reviewed the film after its release. It seems you have overlooked both the sources and the nomination rationale. Would you mind sharing your source analysis below? Mims Mentor Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira Before diving into a source analysis, could you clarify or provide evidence for your claim that each of all sources mentioned are "(part of PR)"? — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of coverage following the film's release is sufficient evidence. Apart from that, the OneIndia article is marked as "Partner Content". As for the trailer launch, inviting all the news media is standard practice and has been done this way consistently. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the "partner content", I do agree with that. However, when I emphasized the need for "collective reviewing" and "additional consideration" of the sources. I recognize that the coverage may not be strong enough to 'firmly keep' the article, but your own analysis doesn't solidly push for deletion either, leaning more towards WP:BARE. As for PR evidence, there isn't concrete proof to back up that claim you made (when you are talking about policies). Pre-release/press release (earned media) coverage isn’t inherently promotional, and reputable outlets like TOI often feature pre-release interviews without the coverage being purely PR-driven. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 12:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are bringing in more essays to XfDs. Please understand that essays are not P&G and hold no significant value in XfDs. The TOI sources are insufficient for a standalone article, especially given that there are literally zero reviews available. There are three articles about the trailer launch featuring the same banner image, yet you believe this isn't sufficient evidence that the press was invited to the event. The sources here are nowhere close to meeting GNG or NFILM. If you disagree, please provide a source analysis that might help me better understand your point of view. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays arent binding, but they offer relevant interpretations in debates like XfDs, especially for borderline cases. Dismissing them outright doesnt negate their value in offering nuance. The TOI sources, while not extensive, still provide verifiable coverage. Prerelease coverage is common, even for non-blockbuster films. Moreover, you havent fully explained why multiple outlets covering the same trailer launch definitively proves PR involvement. The case is WP:BARE now. I believe I’ve made it clear what aspects of the discussion align with GNG, based on policy guidelines. The nominator seems fixated on a single point and dismisses valid considerations by labeling them "essays," which is unproductive. Since the conversation is going in circles, I’ll be stepping back. I suggest exploring more sources from Gujarati media to verify additional coverage of the film instead of narrowing the focus to a single angle.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, no source analysis? Cool. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? to count in more essay? Sorry No! — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These sources can be used to write an article, but they certainly do not meet the standards required to establish GNG and there are no sources available after the film's release. Regarding WP:NFILM, there are literally no reviews for this film, despite it being released in the internet era. The fact that all the sources below greatly appreciate the film, its songs, trailer and its success, yet none of them have published a review, is quite amusing.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movie-details/saiyar-mori-re/movieshow/92209803.cms			✘ No
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release20220713132245/	Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect)		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/saiyar-mori-re-new-song-manda-lidha-mohi-raj-is-winning-hearts-on-the-internet/articleshow/92653580.cms	Entertainment Desk / No byline		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-on-saiyar-mori-re-i-am-feeling-akhand-mauj-exclusive/articleshow/92200116.cms	Interview		✘ No
https://www.zee5.com/articles/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release	Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect)		✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2022/Jul/08/meet-kariyas-saiyar-mori-re-celebrates-rural-flavours-of-india-2474459.html	Express News Service / No byline	~	✘ No
https://www.oneindia.com/partner-content/jay-kariyas-debut-film-saiyar-mori-re-is-out-now-and-the-audience-can-t-get-enough-of-it-3433537.html	Partner content		✘ No
https://www.mynation.com/entertainment/film-saiyar-mori-re-wins-over-the-audience-despite-its-experimental-approach-filmmakers-express-sigh-snt-reuiuy	featured content / No byline		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/watch-saiyar-mori-re-makers-will-soon-drop-a-teaser/articleshow/92082623.cms	Entertainment Desk / No byline		✘ No
https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/gujarati-films-go-global/81859967.html		Passing mention	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-unveils-the-first-look-of-his-saiyar-mori-re/articleshow/92034340.cms	Interview	Routine coverage from an Instagram Post	✘ No
https://navgujaratsamay.com/love-story-based-film-saiyar-mori-re--a-turning-point-in-the-gujarati-film-industrys-history/221700.html	Trailer launch press release		✘ No
https://www.gujaratheadline.com/%e0%aa%b9%e0%aa%b0%e0%aa%bf-%e0%aa%95%e0%aa%b0%e0%ab%87-%e0%aa%8f-%e0%aa%b8%e0%aa%be%e0%aa%9a%e0%ab%81/	Trailer launch press release		✘ No
https://www.abtakmedia.com/god-do-is-the-best-rural-areas-love-story-sayer-mori-re/	Abtak Media / No byline		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/the-international-gujarati-film-festival-igff-returns-with-its-4th-edition-in-chicago-usa-this-year-exclusive/articleshow/101098950.cms		Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NEWSORGINDIA applies to many of these references. The sources assessment shows these to not be reliable as far as notability is concerned. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source assessment table is thoroughly convincing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The best source I could find that wasn't clearly sponsored content was this, and IMHO that isn't enough. The other material is either sponsored, or less substantive. It's not nothing, though, and it's possible I am missing material in other languages, although I did search using the transliterated title. If the director or producer were notable, there is perhaps enough coverage to insert a few sentences into their biographies, but I see we do not have articles about them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source analysis above sums it up. Not much in RS, nothing we can use to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The source assessment table shows that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFSOURCES. It also does not meet WP:NFILM's inclusionary criterion No. 3 since India is a major film producing country.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM criteria for notability. RangersRus (talk) 01:35, 24 December 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 Pop (UK and Ireland)#International versions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pop (Pakistani TV channel)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced and lacks in-depth secondary references. Gheus (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have significant coverage. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pop_(UK_and_Ireland)#International_versions: the Pakistani channel being broadcasting under license of the British-Irish one. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Ireland, and United Kingdom. -Mushy Yank. 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pop_(UK_and_Ireland)#International_versions. Per Mushy Yank and as WP:ATD-R. (Not independently notable, but could be covered within "parent" title.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:28, 23 December 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. Procedural close, this is a Redirect, not an article. As a redirect, it should be discussed at WP:RFD. If there is a desire to revert the redirect, please discuss this on the Redirect talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydev P. Desai

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

Non-notable academic that has no overlap with the University of Maryland page. Yedaman54 (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the surface, as a redirect this would be the wrong venue as being in the purview of RfD and not AfD. However, this also appears to be the contesting of a bold BLAR from 2016, with the rationale non notable on its own since 2008. Another user tried to blank the redirect in 2018, with a similar rationale to the nominator here. Given that, I'm not sure if a procedural close and immediate RfD is warranted, or if the fact this is actually a second contesting of the BLAR means the pre-2016 article contents should be restored and the AfD continuing from there. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Maharashtra, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore pre-2016 contents and keep. He passes WP:PROF: #C1 through high citations [16], #C3 through being "Fellow of the IEEE, ASME, and AIMBE", #C5 through holding the G.P. "Bud" Peterson and Valerie H. Peterson Faculty Professorship in Pediatric Research, and #C8 through being founding editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Robotics Research (for all of these see [17]; the journal is published by World Scientific, a reputable journal publisher). I'm not sure how many others of these were the case in 2016 but the ASME Fellow title, at least, dates to 2015 [18]. In any case redirecting an individual biography to the main article on an entire university, as User:K.e.coffman did then, would only make sense for the person the university is named after, not for some random faculty member. Especially as, in this case, he has long since moved to another university. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article & keep. GS citations are high[19] (1733, 1532, 1110, 633, 546 with a further twenty above 100), also the IEEE fellowship is accepted as passing PROF#3, and the Cardiovascular Biomedical Engineering Distinguished Chair[20] may well meet #5 as well. ETA: The IEEE fellowship is confirmed here: [21] Espresso Addict (talk) 01:35, 24 December 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 television channels in Pakistan#Sindhi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awaz Television Network

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced and lacks in-depth secondary references. Gheus (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Sindhi: (listed there) -Mushy Yank. 09:29, 23 December 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 television channels in Pakistan#Urdu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Play Entertainment

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced and lacks in-depth secondary references. Gheus (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu: until better sources are added. -Mushy Yank. 23:06, 24 December 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative keyword

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

Poorly sourced article that fails WP:GNG. Encoded Talk 💬 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Documentation from Microsoft [22] and Apple [23] can be added to the references. The blog post reference can be removed. That makes room for others: [24] [25] [26].

Book references are also forthcoming: [27] [28] [29] [30]

The article is crap now, but it seems like it can be improved and the phrase is notable and common. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Keyword research as an AtD. I am unconvinced by these sources. The Microsoft and Apple sources are how-to guides for using keywords with MS/Apple products. The blog posts are not reliable sources. The first two books cited above are published by Wiley but each one (and the third book) devotes less than a page to "negative keywords." The fourth book reference is from Lulu and is thus not reliable as an WP:SPS. All told, these brief references aren't really WP:SIGCOV, and per WP:NOPAGE the subject matter can be covered encyclopedically and appropriately with reliable sources at the parent topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how about both Add a section to keyword research and link to this (kept) article. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Book sources:

4 pages
2 pages
4 pages
4 pages
9 pages Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Swire email

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

I believe this has issues with WP:GNG

Lack of Enduring Notability:

WP:NOTNEWS - While the event received widespread media attention at the time (early 2000s), this coverage was largely sensationalist and lacks long-term cultural or historical significance.

Reliable, independent sources do not demonstrate sustained, in-depth coverage of the event. The topic does not appear in discussions of internet history or privacy issues beyond its immediate timeframe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendence (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, and there seems to be no enduring notability.
CR (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only significant coverage found was from 2000 and then it drops off a cliff. As mentioned by OP, this was merely a hot story at the time and has never delved into internet privacy issues thereafter. Present-day coverage was from non-notable sources (Blogger, a listicle, and so on). 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 18:53, 24 December 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!} 23:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darel Chase (bishop)

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

A non-notable clergy person. Sources that mention Chase are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (his personal website, a blog from a bishop in his church, his church's official website x2 x3 x4, x5, his church's international communion website, and corporate documents on the KY secretary of state's site); and an apparent WP:SPS WordPress blog. Several sources do not even mention Chase at all ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]); these are contributing to WP:SYNTH to draw connections about the subject not present in the sources. I found nothing qualifying in a WP:BEFORE search. Finally, let me address WP:BISHOPS since I am guessing it will come up. While AfD participants have debated the applicability of BISHOPS (and I have generally accepted it as a quasi-guideline since WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES align with it, even though it's not a P&G), this bishop does not even qualify under BISHOPS. The church he leads is a micro-denomination that is not part of the Anglican Communion or recognized by any of its member churches. Moreover, Chase is the pastor of an individual congregation, and bishops in this category are per CLERGYOUTCOMES not typically found notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kentucky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh man, that's an interesting character. I'm seeing a remarkably marginal case for notability here, but not enough for me to !vote one way or the other. Dclemens1971, do you mind pinging me at my talk page if I don't get back to this by next weekend? I would like to contribute to this discussion, but it looks like too deep a rabbit hole for this workweek. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti I will try to remember! Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an interesting character, I'd say. He does definitely have a marginal case of notability, so I'll vote for it to be kept. And, isn't it a bit biased to call it a micro-denomination? It is a Christian denomination nonetheless, regardless of its size. It is also quite clear that he is not within the Anglican Communion. Is this a publishing house for authorized religions, or an encyclopedia? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's completely unbiased and reasonable to call it a "micro-denomination". It's own website parish directory lists just four churches. While another part of its website claims 43 churches (scroll down), there's no validation of this. Chase's own diocese appears to have just three churches. Two other dioceses (Diocese of St. Ignatius Loyola Diocese of the North-East appear to have just one church each, and a fourth (Diocese of Pelican Bay) has no website with information. And WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, to the extent they are relied upon, specify "Anglican Communion" -- while I might prefer a different dividing line, I didn't make that up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTFB, and WP:SIGCOV. You can't just call yourself a bishop. You have to be ordained in apostolic succession. WP:BISHOP is a guideline that only creates a presumption of existence that, like WP:NPOL, sources must exist somewhere, for bishops of major denominations. BISHOP doesn't necessarily assume notability; it just says how to set naming conventions. There is a different outcome guideline here: WP:CLERGY:
People listed as bishops in Pentecostal denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third-party coverage. Clerics who hold the title bishop but only serve an individual parish or congregation are typically considered the same as local pastors or parish priests.
The subject was, after lawsuits, left with a single congregation and fails significant coverage; all but two of the sources are not independent of the subject: one is about how secular and canon courts returned church property and doesn't even mention him by name and the other is a brief corporate listing. That is far below significant coverage, almost a velleity of verification. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a little more time to come to a clearer consensus. Some excellent points are being made though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I'm sensitive to TheLionHasSeen's argument, this is a remarkably small denomination that's one of the hundreds that have a bishop-to-laity ratio smaller than my school's teacher-to-student ratio. As such, I'm not seeing a case for presumed notability. Recent coverage of a local scandal by Dreher notwithstanding, there is not particularized SIGCOV here that contributes to GNG. If there's something I'm not privy to that suggests notability might be established soon, I would not be opposed to an AtD like draftification. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 23 December 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!} 05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Consent (Burawoy book)

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

Article does not cite any sources. I tried to help the article and breathe new life into it with a non-free image properly uploaded, but it does not appear to be notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was just referencing the article as you were adding the deletion notice, and accidentally edit-conflicted. I moved a review from the EL to the body, and found another one here. I'm sure I could find more if given the time. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reviews in Estudios Sociológicos (here), Berkeley Journal of Sociology (graduate-student run, however) (here), Social Forces (here), Journal of Social History (here), Industrial and Labor Relations Review (here), Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (here) and Contemporary Sociology (here). I could go on, but this is enough to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources shown above, enough to pass GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 24 December 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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section 108 (film)

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

Upcoming film that doesn't meet WP:NFF. Could be moved to draft space, but there's nothing in the article to show how this meets NFF. Ravensfire (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move to draft space or display maintenance tags for more verified sources which are available. WP:NFF state Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles ... However, this article provide information albeit from an individual's point of view. In addition [39] provide some context as well. QEnigma (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets NFF with the coverage about production; filming has started and is well advanced, premise known, cast confirmed, production issues mentioned. Even if it is never released it would remain a sufficiently-notable production. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since we cannot enforce NFF to movies which have reliable sources confirming the start of principal photography/production after filming began, deletion is not warranted.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see people bringing up NFF as far as production goes. I want to explain a bit about the requirements for an unreleased film establishing notability. To put it bluntly, production starting is not a sign of notability. The guideline is basically that people should not even consider creating articles for unreleased films unless production has begun. If production has begun then an article might be doable, however the article creator(s) would still need to establish how the production is notable in and of itself. In other words, if the film were to be cancelled today and production ground to a complete and total halt, would the current amount and quality of sourcing be enough to establish notability in the here and now?

The reason this came about is because for a while there Wikipedia has a rather big issue with people creating pages for announced films. No production is guaranteed, so there were quite a few films that were stuck in development hell. Names and companies might be attached or some other level of pre-production done, but it never led to any actual production.

As far as coverage goes, keep in mind that there has to be quite a bit and it has to be in depth. This is where it gets tricky, because marketing companies will flood media outlets with what is essentially the same content over and over again. They may announce a single name or change, but ultimately it's all coming from the same press release or statement. Right now the article's production section is non-existent and the current sourcing in the article is pretty paltry. I'm not saying that the film is absolutely non-notable, just that right now it's not really super convincing that this passes NFILM. I'm just concerned that the arguments for keep here are arguing that production has commenced but aren't really backing it up with sourcing to show where the production is notable. I'll see what I can do to expand this, but this really needs more/better sourcing than what is in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it but I'm still a bit uneasy saying that this passes NFILM. Production is completed, but there really wasn't a lot of coverage of the actual production. Most of it was either pre-production announcements or a rehash of pre-production announcements, stating that filming had started. Nobody really talked about the production. Everyone was pretty close mouthed about this. If this were to be an indefinitely shelved film (meaning the actual film was never released and it was used as a tax write-off), then I'm not certain that the current amount of coverage is really enough to establish notability for the movie.

I'm not against the film having an article, so it's not like I'm saying all of this because I'm a deletionist. (I lean more towards inclusion.) It's just that I don't think that the current coverage puts this comfortably out of reach of deletion, if you look at this from the perspective of "if this never releases or gets more coverage". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree with Reader's analysis above. Completing production doesn't in and of itself show notability, it's just a reasonable indicator that information showing notability likely exists. Here, though, no one has been able to show that is the case, so deletion is warranted. I'm at weak delete since the article certainly is doing no harm; it's not excessively promotional and the essentials of the article clearly are accurate. But it's unreleased, and there's no objective basis to say whether it ever will be, and it's standalone notability is wanting. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON until viable third-party reception to the film becomes available. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with Casualty's WP:TOOSOON argument. The article should be placed in the draft space until notability is fully established.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I created the article, this movie was in the news regularly. However, the release dates have been postponed several times and now there has been no update about the movie for several months. As per the coverage it received, I believe it's notable but not sure about the policy about films which don't have release date confirmations. Charsaddian (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 14:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby School Japan

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

This article is about a branch of Rugby School, only opened a year ago. I think that it is WP:TOOSOON for it to be likely to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, and indeed I cannot find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There was an article in The Rugby Advertiser in 2019 about the planned school, but this is local coverage and about a third of the article was a statement from Rugby School. There was an interview with the head in Relocate magazine, but I am not sure that this is a reliable source - the magazine's About talks about sponsored content. There is this article in the Sustainable Japan section of the Japan Times, which is a reliable source, but again it is mostly an interview. There is also an article from the British Chamber of Commerce in Japan, but this is not an independent source. I added a section on overseas branches to Rugby School, and redirected this article there, but another editor reverted this; so bringing it here for the community's view. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rugby School. There is also a Rugby School Thailand which should really be considered together to avoid trainwrecks. Can that be added to this nomination? These are new ventures that purportedly are creating overseas campuses of Rugby school. Rugby is clearly notable, but the only thing making these other sites notable is the Rugby name, which is a clear case of WP:INHERITED. They are, per nom., too new to have gained any independent notability. They should, however, be discussed on the Rugby school page. There is mergeable content and the redirects would preserve former content and provide a pathway for readers to locate the relevant information in the relevant parent article. Spinout could occur if and when they become independenltly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had redirected Rugby School Thailand too - having put brief details of both schools in the Rugby School article first - but that was also reverted. I had considered AfD for that too, but have not yet had time to carry out WP:BEFORE for that branch and it has been going longer (2017) so there may be more coverage, so was holding off on that. Happy for it to be bundled with this discussion though if people want. Tacyarg (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RottenTomato0222 speaking here: I think both articles should NOT be deleted and be kept as independent articles for the following reasons: Though not many readers might recognise either Rugby School Japan or Rugby School Thailand, some teachers/families who are intended to move to those schools have the need to read about that school online whether if they're reading it on Wikipedia or not. Second of all, just because there's not a lot of articles dedicated to Rugby School's branches in Asia compared to the original school, there are tens of articles online discussing about Rugby School Japan and Rugby School Thailand, so we actually do have loads more to write on the article. Third of all, just because the article's discussion is not widely discussed doesn't mean that the article has to be deleted. As mentioned earlier before, there are people who really needs to read those articles. In addition, other world-famous school from the UK like Harrow School's branches in Asia have seperate articles on Wikipedia; like Harrow International School Bangkok, Harrow International School Hong Kong, Harrow International School Beijing, etc.. Furthermore, other UK boarding schools' branches in Asia other than Harrow School all have an article as well, for example; Haileybury Almaty, Marlborough College Malaysia, and Dulwich College Beijing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenTomato0222 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might look a bit messy and have some grammatically incorrect sentences or structures as I was writing that on a hurry. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD, although here it raises an interesting question. Is this school a campus of Rugby School itself, or is it an international school in the way the Oxford International Schools (or Harrow) international schools, where these are legally independent private schools that affiliate to and adopt the syllabus of the affiliating body (e.g the Oxford Education group)? What is the legal arrangement? The page as it stands reads as if this is a campus of Rugby (which is a reasonably common arrangement, more so for universities). But if it is not really part of Rugby at all, but a legally independent private school that is permitted to use the Rugby name then a lot of what is on the page would necessarily be deleted and it is likely (as for a the Oxford International Schools) that there would not be notability of r an article as it would fail WP:NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question, the legal arrangement is that Rugby School Japan is an independent private school, just like many other franchise schools. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the school was set up by Rugby School? Looking at RSJ's website, it says Rugby School Japan is proud to be part of the Rugby School Group, an international network of pupils, teachers and senior leaders. The website for the original Rugby School says Rugby is in the process of developing a family of Rugby schools around the world, following the successful establishment of Rugby School Thailand. So should there be an umbrella Rugby School Group article, if notability is met, and then if we don't find RSJ notable, it can be mentioned there and a redirect in place? Tacyarg (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby School Japan, or should we call it RSJ, was indeed established by Rugby School, but that doesn't mean RSJ is part of Rugby School's campuses. In contrast, Harrow International School Bangkok for example, was established by a British private school, but still has a Wikipedia page on its own, rather than being merged with Harrow School. The reason is simple; going back to the Rugby Schools Group, that is a brand of a school set up by Rugby School, though their schools are still independent. Another reason; many British private schools in Asia might have opened under the name of their original school in the UK, but the operator of the school in Asia are different. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this was not established by Rugby School at all. It is a venture of Clarence Education Asia [40], who seem to have funded the school and then partnered with Rugby School Group. This is a similar structure used by the Oxford Schools. The school is therefore not a campus of Rugby but an independent sister school that is licensed to use the Rugby name and branding, and follows a Rugby School Group curriculum. What this means is that it is a private for profit independent school. The appropriate notability guidelines are WP:NORG. My searches do not find independent sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH, so we are still not at a keep here. The question is only whether an appropriate merge target can be found. I think there is still a case for a merge with Rugby School under a section called either "sister schools" or "Rugby school group". The alternative is there could be a Rugby School Group article per Tacyarg, and that could then cover all such schools. Failing these alternatives, my view is that it should be deleted as it currently lacks independent notability, but my preference is merge somewhere, and Rugby School remains my preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Rugby School Japan is an independent school, either if Rugby School established it or not. Any school can be made into an article, even if it's operated under the name of another institution, unless the whole building is a campus of Rugby School, for example. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added significant coverage from Mainichi in both English and Japanese [41] [42] to the article. Lots of additional coverage in the context of the expansion of British schools into Japan and their tenuous legal status. [43] A significant profile of the headmaster in the Japan Times [44]. Coverage on opening. [45] A bit tricky to search for sources in Japanese but likely quite a bit exists once you filter through coverage of school rugby games that come up for those keywords... DCsansei (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Ones (web series)

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

Non-notable web series. None of the sources are reliable, and none were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Internet. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage of any kind found, there seems to be a TV series in Imdb with a similar name. Sources used in the article are not RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the IMDb page you are referring to? That is indeed the same Cold Ones that is referred in the wiki page. Liminography (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was... Still doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Over 1 million subscribers on YouTube, and a rare instance of an Australian small business attempting to sell a brand of alcoholic drinks in the US.

50.29.218.22 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity does not equal notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why are you being such a pr!ck Canon? they’re pretty notable, more so than either of us, and are not hard to find info about online. BalenXC (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the subject is not notable. When searching for reliable sources I'm mostly finding announcements about their product "Grog". TipsyElephant (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References appear to be from non-quality sites. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:28, 29 December 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. Admittedly, this is a result no one asked for. But while I see a pretty clear consensus for deletion, there's clearly some promise here, and I'll take BusterD up on their implied offer. Also, since he's 100 in 2025, we may be about to get some retrospective coverage that will help. asilvering (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beint

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

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR due to insignificant roles in films which are also difficult to verify due to the lack of reliable sources. Frost 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nomination. Everyone who appeared in a Broadway show is not thereby notable. This article lacks WP:RS citations and is fails WP:GNG criterion. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As You Like It only ran for 8 performances on Broadway.[46] It toured elsewhere, but this is the only review I can find with Beint mentioned -- which is really not sigcov of him as an actor -- and there's hardly any appearances of his name in the GNews archive[47] (though this is obviously a far from complete repository, particularly of The Times). Even if something approaching sigcov of his AYLI role could be found, we'd likely still need additional sigcov for his other acting. His IMDB listing shows guest and short recurring TV roles, and what looks like minor movie roles. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need clarification as to whether having a large body of professional work as a character actor counts for NACTOR. I see literally hundreds of hits in Google books and news about all his roles, including a few longer reviews like this. Many seem to be mere listings or a few blogs like this. Not sure what to do with marginal cases like this. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, since I got no response, please mark me as weak keep per WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR mentions "prolific" contributions as one of its criteria. Keep. There is coverage in reviews on various of his signficant theater roles and his numerous film/TV roles are verifiable (some can be considered significant, including the one in The Hi-Jackers or The Witchfinder General for example). His life can be sourced through things like https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/17310736.rodbourne-couple-celebrate-70-years-wedded-bliss/. -Mushy Yank. 08:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as arguments are now evenly divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing subject having 1) significant roles in 2) multiple 3) notable productions, per WP:NACTOR. The source cited above is about Beint's marriage, with his body of work as a performance as an afterthought. Longhornsg (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source I mentioned is merely and solely to source his personal life not to prove his notability. -Mushy Yank. 07:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite his body of work, a search turned up no significant independent coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not WP:NOTABLE. Simply working as a journeyman actor, or even making a career out of it, does not merit a Wiki article. He fails to meet WP:GNG criteria and has few credible WP:RS citations either. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not just about a working actor; instead about a vast body of work of character roles in film and television, but mostly about an illustrious theater career as stage leads on West End and in the UK. The source linked above by Bearian (a reference volume about notable productions of plays by Shakespeare) discusses the subject's 1954 title role in Sir Thomas More, the next production it discusses is Ian McKellen's 1964 portrayal in the same role. This article in The Nation mentions the subject's appearance in a 1986 London Royal National Theater performance of Pravda (play) (by David Hare) opposite a young Anthony Hopkins in "the best performance of his career". (I'm presuming if you're co-starring with Hopkins onstage every night, you must be a respected actor.) This guy is not merely a working actor, he's been a working (and often leading) theater actor for over 60 years, doing his last television appearance in 2010. One more thing: this fellow will turn 100 years old in 2025, and he's worked with actors from Margaret Rutherford to Cate Blanchette. I suspect the reason he appeared in so many films and tv shows (135 different titles) is that his face and work was already so familiar in the British theater community (mostly from the National). I'm aware my "day late and dollar short" keep assertion may not impress, but I'll bet if I had access to more London theater reviews I'd find abundant direct detailing. If deleted, I may research a new draft. BusterD (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tum, Ethiopia

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

Withdraw nomination - see comment below. My searches turned up nothing to support the subject's notability. The only claim one could make re notability is Tum Airport which already has its own article. This article has only just been created, so I would usually draftify, but this has already been done once, and an editor has moved it back, thereby asserting that the page belongs in mainspace. Hence my nomination for deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND is one of our most permissive notability guidelines. This is difficult to search for in English - the only results I was able to find that were not database entries were tour groups which had planned a night to be spent there, lots of Getty images taken in or near there, or quasi-reliable sites like [48]. However it is easily verified on maps and satellite images especially due to the airport. It's to be expected since it's a remote part of the world, but it's clearly a town. What would be really helpful is if someone could provide the local spelling to be able to search for additional results. SportingFlyer T·C 01:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and eventually draftify), per reasons above. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GEOLAND requires some actual proof and not hand waving. Also see WP:DEL-REASON #7, if no references can be found for the article it should not exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'''Keep"': Given to the reasons raised by @SportingFlyer

Esti92 (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third ever edit of Esti92. Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:GEOLAND remains a pathetically low standard, as it often enough is interpreted to mean that we have to write out an article for the name of a dot on a map, but I would be grudgingly willing to keep some article here if we could cite that the obvious village seen in maps and aerials were actually named "Tum". Mangoe (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had not read WP:GEOLAND before, but have now. It still seems incredible to retain this recently-created article in mainspace as it stands, with not a reference in sight. The Menit tribes one that you noted, SportingFlyer, looks pretty thin to my eyes too. I would happily agree to draftify to allow the contributing editor to reference more fully, or maybe a redirect with possibilities to Tum Airport. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very bad article, the topic is just clearly eligible for a mainspace page. SportingFlyer T·C 23:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be eligible, but it's not in a fit state to have in mainspace right now, hence my alternative to deletion suggestion to draftify it so that it can be brought up to scratch. Which I'd've done anyway had it not already been explicitly moved from mainspace to draft and back into mainspace. Having looked into it a bit more, I came across this source, an official gov.et report on the census of 2007, which refers to a town (not village) called Tumi, that does have a recorded population. Maybe this is the proper name of the location, not Tum. I wonder if the creating editor A editor from mars might be able to weigh in here. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't need an alternative to deletion here, we can already verify it and therefore it's eligible to be in mainspace and can be improved there. I've also found [49] to help verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've reviewed the census - Tumi really does look like Tum as it is in the correct "area" of the census for that part of Ethiopia, but I'm not sure why it is Tumi and not Tum. As I've referenced earlier, I'm not sure if that is a romanisation error. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what exactly are we verifying? The existence of a village, or maybe a town, possibly called Tum somewhere in SW Ethiopia? The article is currently so vague as to be practically useless if not downright misleading. That's why it should be in draftspace right now. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's clearly a town which passes WP:GEOLAND in southwest Ethiopia, commonly named Tum in English sources. I've added a source. See also mentions in [50] [51] [52]. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is a great source you added - thank you SportingFlyer. I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:54, 29 December 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.

Värsked postitused

Most Used Categories

Martin Helme