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

The result was no consensus‎. After discarding irrelevant, non-P&G-based !votes, we're left without a consensus. Broad participation makes it unlikely we'd see consensus form with yet another relist. Owen× ☎ 12:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Otávio Jordão da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:LASTING. I can't find anything really substantial about this murder after the few days of coverage in 2013. Lettlre (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Football, and Brazil. Lettlre (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bit of coverage in a 2023 German book, which is probably sigcov, but that's only one thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my vote is delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although tabloid, [1], that is lasting! Sources are fine in the article, covers the events, you have multiple different YouTube videos which show lasting like this one [2], there are posts on Facebook and TikTok about this, Twitter [3], etc. Those few bits years later, So ye, Keep for me, thanks. Govvy (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The tabloid doesn't help, the YouTube videos don't help, social media posts definitely do not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We should never use social media sources per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep significant incident with fair coverage Ecpiandy (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the sources date back to 2013, when the incident took place. WP:LASTING states that "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." This murder was not a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance. And it has definitely been long enough to determine whether or not this event is lasting. Therefore, it is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Plus, the article fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE because the only significant coverage of the murder happened while it was still breaking news (5–8 July). The article was also created on 7 July, while much of the news was still coming out about the event, which makes me think that the creation of the article was a little rushed. Govvy's links to social media websites, Youtube, and the tabloid definitely do not help establish notability. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply @Relativity: I never said the links I provided show notability, that's already been established in the article, what I provided shows lasting, is it still being talked about years later, what I showed is yes it is. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not how lasting is established. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GNG. Significant coverage with third party sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article might pass the GNG but doesn't pass the SNG. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  it doesn't even pass the GNG because none of these sources contribute to the GNG because they are all PRIMARYNEWS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability - NOTNEWS. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This is not a football context, but rather a brutal/macabre murder that had repercussions in Brazil years ago. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What repercussions? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very clearly notable, highly unusual and passes WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article is very well-written, and checking through the sources, it does have a fair amount of coverage. Not sufficient grounds for deletion.

Brat Forelli🦊 22:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, article is well sourced and is a very infamous event. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Everyone here should read WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closer as you're assessing the discussion, there's a keep !vote on the Talk Star Mississippi 19:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only article published beyond 2013 that I could find was this one. People are murdered every day, a sudden burst of coverage does not make a case worth a separate article. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don’t see any room for doubting the notability. There are other reliable sources not cited by the article such as the NYT report, and published books. The article meets nothing in WP:DEL-REASON. As an unsolved case, it is normal for the media to stop reporting after a period of time. It doesn’t mean those published pieces were unreliable. It’s still possible that someone who’s directly involved would speak out one day and provide more details, and our editors could then expand this article. Nihonjinatny (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after a period of time, but the period this was covered in is so short it does not fulfill WP:NEVENT. A short burst of news coverage is not enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sensationalistic page of an incident that got primary sources/headlines, and zero secondary sources, then nothing else for 11 years. This is a prime example of news. We don’t do that. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I strongly encourage you to retain this as it is good reminder of why we should stay in control of ourselves during sporting events. After reading the page I felt I understood the event very well and it's strong significance. Suncheon Boy — Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 27 August 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!} 21:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Trotskyist Opposition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Probably fails WP:GNG. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No demonstration of meeting GNG. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with Workers' Communist Party (Italy). Wellington Bay (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing comrade with the Workers' Communist Party of Italy and have contacts with the ITO, I have made the page for the simple reason being there is no existing page currently, I am being targeted by members seemingly part of the ISA. Jamesation (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Workers' Communist Party (Italy), per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, just articles on the WCP website and blogs.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR failing GNG. Nothing sourced = nothing to merge. --Cavarrone 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between editors arguing to Merge and those advocating Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There’s no evidence of notability, it doesn’t meet the Primary criteria, WP:ORGCRIT. Nihonjinatny (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of WP:SIGCOV and not even trivial mentions as part of a notable subject, which would be the basis for a merge. Contributor892z (talk) 09:00, 28 August 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!} 05:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:N. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this game developer. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Skazi (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The company is probably not notable, but e.g. Crisis in the Kremlin was reviewed by igromania.ru. IgelRM (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to non-notability, lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:00, 25 August 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 . While the sole Keep view lacks substance, we failed to garner quorum even after four weeks, limiting the outcome to a soft deletion. Owen× ☎ 12:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mbugua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No satisfactory sources in the article, and a quick search didn't find any. Note: this was prompted by a request at the help desk on behalf of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Law, and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this in the help desk, for me personally, I suggest keeping the article, my reason is because she co-founded (is that correct?) the biggest law firm in Kenya, and is one of the top 40 most popular women from Kenya.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheNuggeteer, more important than your opinion on this subject is how you would counter the reasons offered in the deletion rationale. What sources support your claim of notability? Please be specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sources 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the sources which prompt me to give the "keep" reply. She does not seem notable outside the business, I'll give you that, but being one of the top 40 women from a country is enough for me.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer, please read what Wikipedia means by notable. 2 and 6 do not mention her. 3 and 7 (which are the same source) has a potted biography, but is mostly quoting her. 5 gives me a 404, but judging by its title, I would be amazed if it had significant coverage of her. 8 and 9 give potted biographies, but are almost certainly not independent.

Sources used to establish notability need to meet all three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments only: Firstly, several of the sources are actually the same. Secondly, appearing in a list of “40 under 40” is not the same thing as “one of the 40 most popular women.” Finally, we need to decide whether being a partner in Dentons, by far the largest law firm in the World, creates a legal notability by itself. This discussion might have to go more than a few days. In the meantime, please ping me if you find additional sources. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more opinions here on closure options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable at this time, agreeing with the reasons that the sources used in the article and an online search of the name do not show significant coverage in independent sources. Another thing she is a member, doesn't look like a partner at Denton's through its acquisition of Hamilton Harrison & Mathews Law Firm; additionally, notability is not inherited, as is the case with her and Dentons Law Firm. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 21 August 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 . Any editor is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 13:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references that are presently used in the article mention him once or twice, at most. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Out the Gate (film), in which he starred. toweli (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Jamaica, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 August 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 Gamer Network. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VG247 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to pass notability. The Uncharted review retraction paragraph seems to be only paragraph I suggest merging to Gamer Network. IgelRM (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Video games, and Websites. IgelRM (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - If there's nothing else about it anywhere it might as well be merged. GamerPro64 02:07, 23 August 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!} 22:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khaguria High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This would be deleted per WP:A7 if schools were eligible. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searches in English and Bengali found nothing aside from indiscriminate non-independent lists/databases, [4] and routine event coverage.[5] So does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. In principle it could be redirected to Lakshmipur Sadar Upazila, where the school is located and is among 40+ institutions mentioned, but the topic probably shouldn't be covered in that broad article. If there were an article about the smaller geographic area Dighali Union, that would be a suitable target. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as the article has no sources. And also we can not find sources about it anywhere. Mehedi Abedin 12:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable school. There is no significant coverage on this subject. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn’t find any media or news coverage for this school. Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 22:46, 27 August 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 Mass killings under communist regimes. It looks like this is an outcome that is acceptable to most participants here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is WP:SYNTH, as it uses multiple sources that are not specifically about the broad topic of communist regimes to make an original conclusion Crasias (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a terrible and synthy article, starting with the fact that it's really impossible in most cases to precisely apply the term "Community" to a nation state, so delete, but I doubt that this will end differently from the last time. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it remains a relevant article. Also, an article is not supposed to reach an "original conclusion" as that would probably be WP:OR. - Amigao (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amigao, that is what the nomination is signaling. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and an argument can be made for re-working lede language and other parts so that it's all properly in WP:WIKIVOICE (e.g., similar to Persecution of Uyghurs in China). However, that's really for the article's talk page and not a deletion discussion. - Amigao (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The topic itself has been covered by numerous experts —R. J. Rummel, Julia Straus, Stephen Kotkin, etc.—, and the article itself deals with objective facts (such as Stalin's purges or the Red Terror, among others). Also, I feel that the motivation for the elimination has ideological reasons.

ComradeHektor (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise solution, I propose that it could also be merged with Mass killings under communist regimes. ComradeHektor (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• From my point of view the article is complete WP:SYNTHESIS - unfortunately, there is literally nothing new that can be said that has not already been debated umpteen times at Mass killings under communist regimes and that article's various associated AfD discussions. I think the merge proposal from ComradeHektor is quite reasonable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge - I was surprised to discover that Crimes against humanity under communist regimes is a separate article from Mass killings under communist regimes. This distinction does not exist in the sources, so I think this is a redundant content fork situation. The sources always talk about communist mass killings and other communist crimes against humanity together, not only in the same books and articles, but often on the same page or paragraph. In fact, the current wikipedia articles themselves inevitably mix the two, because there is no way to really separate them. The "mass killings" article, in its Terminology section, says that some authors use "crimes against humanity" as a synonym for the killings. It's clearly the same topic, not two topics. The sources don't separate them, so we shouldn't separate them either. The term "mass killings" might sound like it excludes crimes that didn't result in deaths of the victims, but I think treating it that way is too literal when the murderous crimes and non-murderous crimes were committed at the same time by the same people. Every historical genocide or mass killing always included a lot of crimes that didn't result in death, too, alongside the ones that did. For every person who died in a mass murder event, there are always several others who suffered but did not die. We still refer to such events as "killings", "mass murder" and so on, even when not all the victims were murdered. It's fine.

So, the articles should be merged. I have listed my suggestion as "delete/merge" rather than just "merge" because other editors have raised concerns about the content at Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, so I'm not saying that it should all be merged into Mass killings under communist regimes. Some of it may be synthesis, or not of adequate quality. It would have to be checked. After a quick read, I notice that for example the Bulgaria section does not cite any sources at all. So that should probably be removed instead of merged. But in any case, at the end of the day, this topic should be covered in one article instead of two. - Small colossal (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep would be my first choice per ComradeHektor and Amigao. However, in failing that, I'd be happy with a merge into the mass killings article as Hektor suggested. — Czello ^(music) 07:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Billhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this German footballer. All I came across was non-independent press releases and trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Germany, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Michigan, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Poorly-sourced too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. No significance coverage for the player, only match reports.

Priscilladfb16 (talk) 22:49, 27 August 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT and the Olympic Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Main article is LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. I'm not sure why this page would be needed just for some links, all of which are in the main article. Any additional content can go there as well, this is superfluous. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft if Another Believer wants to continue to expand it. This is nowhere near ready for main space. Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be more of a discussion about the scope/title of the 'parent' article. To me, a lot of the content in LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games aren't "issues". I was attempting to create a parent article that didn't present all things LGBT as "issues". In my opinion, at minimum the Success, Visibility and recognition, and Overview of LGBTQ+ Olympics sections could be moved over to LGBT and the Olympic Games. Or, if we're to keep a single page for the intersection of LGBT and the Olympics, then I suggest we rename LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming that article makes more sense than two overlapping articles, certainly more than creating a page of only links in mainspace. This article's title makes even less sense since LGBT is an adjective and shouldn't stand alone. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is not the issue, then this discussion is not necessary. If you're willing to withdraw this nomination and propose a rename/move at LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games, then I'd be more comfortable redirecting LGBT and the Olympic Games. "Issues" is the most irksome bit, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment is kind of, train of thought, so apologies:) I have to say, if I had done it, I would have just incorporated the info on drag into the main article where it fitted - I did raise some concerns at the drag and the Olympic Games talkpage including that drag + Olympics doesn't seem to be defined as a topic, so IDK whether it effectively should exist separately, which is kind of the only missing link of related content at the main article. Of course, whether incorporating the drag examples into the history sections or adding a section, I would agree that this is something that can be done at the main article and not a secondary page that is currently just a collection of links. I would suggest redirecting LGBT and the Olympic Games to LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Of course, improving the coverage overall is my (everyone's?) main priority, so if you have ideas for renaming the main article or proposals for logical splits, very happy to hear them. In the links template, the main article is "History and issues", would that (or just 'history' to replace 'issues') work? Kingsif (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif Above, I have proposed closing this discussion (notability is not the issue here) and starting a rename / move discussion re: LGBTI issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games, before redirecting LGBT and the Olympic Games. Would this work for you? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that works. If there's no further participation, I don't think anyone would mind Reywas withdrawing the AfD. Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, User:Reywas92, will you please withdraw? This was never necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This link-only page and your undoing my redirect of it was never necessary but yes I will close this and re-redirect. Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 22 August 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 PVR INOX#CineMAX. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemax (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This subject fails WP:NCORP as a standalone article; sources are all WP:ORGTRIV. Propose to restore a redirect to PVR INOX, which purchased this company. (A merger discussion was inconclusive and editors have contested a subsequent merge and redirect, making an AfD consensus helpful here.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Business, and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, we can generally assume that sources which satisfy our notability conditions exist in languages other than english for a significant foreign listed company unless given strong reason to believe otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to PVR INOX#CineMAX Company had an unremarkable ten-year history and quietly faded away after the merger. Nate • (chatter) 20:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources seem to show this is notable enough. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to PVR INOX#CineMAX. Not notable and the company has been acquired by PVR cinemas. Cinemax web domain does not exist anymore. Source 1 is about cineline stock entry (different company?), source 2 does not have a page anymore even in archives, source 3 has nothing on the company either, source 4 and 5 have no significant coverage except for being acquired by PVR. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - I would say delete but redirect would be a good WP:ATD. The sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT which is the criteria since this falls under WP:NCORP. Cannot locate anything else that would meet that criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:27, 23 August 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. The delete !votes do not only outnumber the keeps 2 to 1 (counting nominator), but more importantly because it's not a vote, their commenters address issues of notability and coverage more clearly and more in line with policy. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The presently used references are either primary or unreliable sources. The article was deleted on Spanish Wikipedia in 2018; that discussion also points out the issues with this article. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, Law, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  KEEP The author has written books and articles some of which may be found on: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=Alfonso%2Bde%2BCeballos-Escalera%2By%2BGila&crid=24HSSVNYBC0FT&sprefix=alfonso%2Bde%2Bceballos-escalera%2By%2Bgila%2Caps%2C115&ref=nb_sb_noss and https://www.google.com/search?sa=N&sca_esv=d139cd1eb4e89a1c&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ADLYWIIv_Al2K0HM9e6rfLi85owlYKwEgw:1723893341467&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Alfonso+de+Ceballos-Escalera+y+Gila%22&ved=2ahUKEwibxv6R8_uHAxWsSkEAHWwMEK8Q9Ah6BAgKEAc&biw=2627&bih=948&dpr=1.31

  He acts as the Cronista of Castilla y Leon (Decree 105/1991, May 9 (Official Gazette of Castile and Leon, May 16, 1991) " Art. 16.- The Chronicler of Arms of Castile and Leon shall report on any matters within his specialty submitted to him by the Junta of Castile and Leon and the Provincial Councils, and shall hold the traditional powers and competences of the former Chroniclers, Kings of Arms and Heralds of Castile and Leon, contained in the Royal Decree of July 29, 1915, and the Decree of April 13, 1951." There are two schools of thought as to the extent of his powers, in relation to parts of the Royal Decree of 1915, as there were in relation to the validity of the last Cronista of Spain, but in both cases as a practical matter there has been widespread acceptance of acts carried out by the office holder. As may be seen, the Wikipedia accounts would benefit from amplification of the entries by competent people https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronista_Rey_de_Armas

  There has throughout the 20th century been a deep split in Spanish society between the conservative and monarchist half and the republican including the leftist half, and though nominally a monarchy there are parts even of the institutions of Spain that are opposed to all manifestations of the right or of monarchical prerogative. The position of cronista is one of the battlegrounds on which this has been fought [sources available]. The subject of this article is distinguished both socially and academically, and the desire to delete or cancel him may owe something to his position as a supporter of the rightist political party Vox. For this reason, in the interest of free debate and given the distinguished career of the subject, which would normally merit inclusion, it is suggested that his entry be amended by inclusion (by a qualified Spanish speaker) of a list of his publications. 2.96.174.234 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see he is the author of multiple books and there is significant coverage of him in the news (see 1 and 2. Not the strongest case for keeping and the article itself is pretty weird but I think it passes. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the press coverage was only for being elected to a council of a relatively small town (Segovia isn't that big). The books also don't appear notable on their own. My before search is pretty barren as well - nothing clearly secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He has written books, many on heraldry, but even on the Spanish Amazon his books do not have traction (no outside reviews, no stars). This article has more about Spanish peerage than about him, and the few sources are things that are about like ancestry.com. Of the sources mentioned above I can only access the first one, and that is about his house. That doesn't translate to notability. Lamona (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Authoring a book is not grounds for notability as anyone can write and publish - the relevant policy is WP:AUTHOR. The article seems like a vanity piece and has factual errors. He is not "King of Arms of Spain" - "The last Chronicler Kings of Arms appointed by the Spanish Ministry of Justice, Don Vicente de Cadenas y Vicent, died in 2005." He is apparently "Chronicler of Arms for Castile and León" but I can't find a good source for that claim right now. D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:21, 27 August 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racers Track Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

no independent sources, could not establish notability LR.127 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Jamaica. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, I don't think the nomination statement is true. At the time of nomination there were sources from LetsRun.com, The Guardian, and TrackAlerts, all of which are independent from the subject. Also, the club was heavily featured in the Netflix documentary Sprint (TV series) and related coverage. The bar for WP:GNG is clearly met here. --Habst (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As mentioned by Habst, there are mentions of this club in numerous secondary sources. The club meets the notability guidelines. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Found a few sources that appear to be independent, but not too many. Appears to be just barely notable. StewdioMACK (talk) 19:21, 28 August 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 18:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yen Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Random congressional candidate. The page cites 2 articles from a local outlet about Bailey declaring her candidacy and doesn't even attempt to show why she's notable. Of all the pages I've ever nominated for deletion, this is probably the most obviously non-notable. The page creator seems to have a personal connection to Bailey, judging by the fact that they uploaded the photo of Bailey on the page and tagged it as "own work." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 2. Not enough here to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Bkissin (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say in the nomination, but I would support a redirect to that page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no opinion on the outcome, but Florida Politics suggests that the two cited sources, no matter how valuable they might be in other respects, might not technically qualify as Wikipedia:Independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This candidate is not notable and has not done anything note worthy, random congressional candidates are not given wiki pages unless they are notable in some form or another. NathanBru (talk)
• Delete. Not notable candidate. Does not meet notability and significant coverage standards. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons as it is, or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies. But this shows neither of those things at all. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for an article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others JSwift49 13:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV Robertjamal12 ~🔔 22:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As mentioned in WP:NPOL, “just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability”. This candidate does not meet WP:GNG either. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 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 withdrawn; speedy keep‎.(non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mga Mata ni Anghelita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Given its edit history, you'd expect this 70-episode primetime soap to have WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. But the only sources in the article are WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs (the link to its YouTube page) or tabloid content that includes WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the series (and is otherwise excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST). My WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else beyond a WP:PRESSRELEASE, and the only reviews I found were on WP:USERGENERATED blogs. I don't see a pass of WP:GNG or WP:TVSERIES. I am OK with outright deletion or a redirect to GMA Network, but given the page's history, I believe an AfD consensus will be necessary to make the redirect stick. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC) With sufficient sources found and added, withdrawn and speedy keep.[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The show ran in 2007. Any WP:GNG may have died of link rot by now. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but a look at the page history shows there was never any sigcov cited in this article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the oldest page versions, and on the first one I clicked, saw this used as a ref in a June 2007 version of the article. It's dead now, but the Philippine Entertainment Portal generally falls under WP:RS. Other people may find the article on some archive but I'm on a mobile and don't have a working computer to get this done. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's here: https://web.archive.org/web/20070614032744/https://www.pep.ph/news/13214/GMA-7-to-serialize-Mga-Mata-ni-Angelita-of-the-late-Julie-Vega. I wouldn't say it's particularly substantive; seems based on a press release. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the article refers to a show as if it is not yet a done deal. The last paragraph roughly translates to "If the show is greenlit, it will replace Asian Treasures on its timeslot."

There are no press releases on things that are not set in stone, so this may be not particularly substantive 5-paragraph article based purely on speculation... We all knew the show came to be, so... Howard the Duck (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of press releases are issued in advance of TV shows being completed. But even if this is considered sigcov (I'm skeptical), we need to see more for GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Philippines; we don't do weekly press releases on new shows a month before it airs. This is actually more how it is done with some writers writing about speculation if ever the show will even make it to the airwaves before it supposedly premieres (lol).

There maybe other PEP pieces for this show, or from other sources altogether, but I can't be bothered to find those. I won't lose sleep this being deleted, but clearly, there had been borderline SIGCOV sources used in this article, even in its earliest days, and possibly others may be discovered if someone takes a look. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am convinced by Howard the Duck's arguments and find the coverage indicates some notability. The notable cast contributes to it; it had 70 episodes on a major network. (Aside note: It would be nice if users who tag films or television series articles for notability indicated the category of the page so that they could be improved with time by interested users and not only in a rush once they are taken to AfD and appear on their radar. Thank you) A redirect to the network or co-director is totally warranted, so that I am very opposed to the deletion of the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added more third party references as well into the article. Hotwiki (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hotwiki. With sufficient sigcov in a few of the independent sources added, I've withdrawn this nomination. Speedy keep Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 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 Wikimedian of the Year. Consensus here is that WOTY is not itself sufficient to confer notability and other potential sources to sustain an article do not exist. Congratulations in any case, Clovermoss, for the award. (I should also note that I have interacted with Clovermoss off-wiki before, but she did not ask me to participate in any capacity, and as such I do not believe I have a COI.) ^Complex/_Rational 18:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Clover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While I'm honoured that someone was enthusiastic enough to create an article about me, I think it might be a bit premature. I doubt I meet WP:BASIC at this point in time. There was a brief shared interview that was present in an episode of BBC Tech Life. It starts at 20:20. Then there's the newspaper cited in the article. While this piece quotes me, it is not an interview, and appears to have been inspired by this. That's the extent of any secondary sourcing available. I think a redirect makes the most sense for now but I will be alright if consensus comes to a different decision. I mostly just think that a discussion about notability should be had here and I figured that by starting it myself no one would have to worry about offending me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. Since you won't be offended, in the absence of other coverage I think that WP:BLP1E applies here. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also applies since there is no strong case for keeping a standalone article. (I get that one could make a case for WP:ANYBIO criterion 1, but I think that the subject's request for redirection supersedes that in the absence of any other evidence of notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not really requesting deletion per se. Like if people genuinely think ANYBIO applies I don't think the fact that I was the one to start the AfD should be noteworthy, even if I understand why BLPREQUESTDELETE exists. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect per Clovermoss and Dclemens1971. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I feel like the global award from the Wikimedia movement meets WP:ANYBIO - although granted other RS are scant Lajmmoore (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Congratulations Clovermoss!! However Wikimedian of the Year is obviously not well-known or significant outside of our own community so Anybio is not met. Reywas92^Talk 19:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ANYBIO: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. While I understand that some might not see Wikimedian of the Year as a particularly significant award... this is Wikipedia. We're allowed to think of ourselves as significant and important, and even if the coverage here is borderline, since most people who have won the award seem to pass GNG, it's reasonable to have articles on all of them as a set. (Noting that I do know Hannah personally, but she did not ask me to comment here, nor do I think that I have a COI in wanting her to have an article -- I'd make the same argument no matter who won the award.) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ANYBIO Md Joni Hossain (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. This strikes me as being pretty self-evident here. ONEEVENT. Carrite (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:NBIO. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (restoring the original redirect to Wikimedian of the Year) per nom: notability is not established by coverage in independent sources and award is insufficiently notable to bypass the requirement for independent coverage. Also as others have said, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can y'all please stop citing that one? She isn't actually requesting deletion here and she clarified as such above. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect This is a WP:BLP1E. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BLP1E, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Even if Wikimedian of the Year is significant enough to qualify for ANYBIO - and I would suggest were we not all Wikipedians we'd all be skeptical that a person of the year from a 180 million USD nonprofit is a well-known/signficant honor or even notable enough to have a list page just showing how we all have a COI and all the problems that come with it when editing abotu Wikipedia - that would just indicate a likely notability. Clovermoss has demonstrated how the sourcing is not sufficient to meet notability standards in actuality; in other words (even if this award is enough for ANYBIO) it might be likely but it still didn't happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If we make this a redirect, she will be the only person listed on Wikimedian of the Year without an article. I suggest we look for further coverage and expand the article. Even if it is connected with Wikipedia, this is an important award and all winners deserve biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ipigott: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale in deletion discussions. A subject must be independently notable and we do not have a notability criteria that states that anybody who has won the award has assumed notability. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh:: Thanks for your useful reaction. I suggested keep as a basis for trying to expand the article. If this is not possible, then I agree we should go back to redirect but I still think we should see how things evolve over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Hey no worries, I'm definitely not trying to convince you to change your vote, and I respect your intentions. I just like to mention it so that an argument can possibly be refactored to better express one's point. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few other articles that are fairly weak on sourcing, and I think people just made them because they appreciate other Wikipedians, not because they really passed GNG with them. While for the most part recipients have gotten coverage in one way or another that justifies an article, this award alone is very simply not well known enough for standard GNG expections of significant coverage to be thrown out. Reywas92^Talk 15:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: I disagree that WP:ANYBIO is met with this award. I do not believe there's currently enough independent WP:SIGCOV of the individual to justify a standalone article. Frankly, a number of the other articles for past winners should also be redirected, but nobody wants to be the one to do. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, per everyone above. Lack of notability, blp1e, blprequestdelete, and all the rest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, saw this last night and have been mulling it over. You know, Wikipedia is not just another website, it is the world's foremost encyclopedia, the "go to" place for information on and for search engines such as Google, and is a household name simply because almost every household on the planet either uses it or gains from it, a large percentage of them on a daily basis. This ain't beanbag, as Yogi Berra probably said while playing beanbag. Wikipedia has settled into its niche as a major 21st century communication and knowledge tool. There has never been a civilizational collab project such as this except in wartime. Its volunteer editors are not navel-gazing when judging its self-referential articles, but are accurately encyclopedically reporting on an unprecedented and ever-growing cultural tool and educationally-based phenomena. Articles for its Wikipedians and Wikimedians of the Year fit that rational. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect No barnstar, internal award or other Wikipedia badge make a person automatically notable. Basically WP:NPEOPLE, section "Articles on Wikipedians" says that essentially articles about these people should pass GNG, and this article simply doesn't. WP:ANYBIO requires a significant and famous award - ask random people on the street what awards Wikipedia gives. Ehhh... ehhh... *crickets*. It's not like Wikipedian of the Year is like being inducted in the NFL Hall of Fame, getting an Oscar or a Fields Medal, or even close to that.

Also, when the subject themselves do not want an article or doubt about their notability, I'd strongly consider just not creating the article in the first place.

Regardless of all the above, congrats on the award, and keep doing the great work. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect . I don't think the award meets the standards of WP:ANYBIO. Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ANYBIO Tuhin (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect until better sourcing is found, per BLP1E and Clovermoss's comments above. --130.111.220.19 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. WP:ANYBIO is additional criteria that is preceded by People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. So even presuming that Wikimedian of the Year qualifies as a well-known and significant award or honor, that doesn't mean there must be a stand-alone article on this person. In this case, when there is an absence of significant coverage, the redirect to and listing in Wikimedian of the Year suffices for encyclopedic purposes. (Separately, congratulations to Clovermoss!) Schazjmd (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO at this time. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreation should additional sourcing emerge. Let'srun (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all the above arguments. While I am am sure Clovermoss is deserving of the honor as a great Wikipedian, I don't think Wikimedian of the Year meets ANYBIO as it is given purely at the whim of Jimbo Wales, as opposed to vetting by the community and/or the foundation, and it recieves very scant media coverage. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Just Step Sideways: It's a bit more complicated than that. While Jimmy Wales is indeed the person who has the final say, I was one of five shortlisted candidates. The process before that involves some degree of vetting from the foundation and they seek input from others on who to consider (apparently I was a very popular choice and a name they heard often). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would it matter who gives out the award? jp×g🗯️ 09:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  that's what i keep telling people, but apparently being the designated MVP in high school mock trial "isn't as good as a Rhodes Scholarship" or whatever. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I won my school's kindness award when I was in grade 2. Surely that counts for something! 😂 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep per WP:ANYBIO. As long as the person is given attention by multiple sources, there's no need to delete it. Your contributions have drawn attention to the public. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ahri Boy: I don't really have multiple sources though, that's the whole point of me starting this AfD. I think it's premature when the only SIGCOV is a single newspaper article (see my nomination statement). I would've felt like a hypocrite if I hadn't started this, I don't think I deserve special treatment. It's possible that more sources will exist someday and then I'd change my mind. But the way things stand now, I think the redirect should probably be reinstated. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this AfD seems to be attracting widespread interest, I think it seems only right to notify people that a similar article has also been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taufik Rosman. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year, if the article is not improved. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Although this is not a BLPREQUESTDELETE, I would not consider WotY a "well-known and significant award" for ANYBIO, and probably also a NOPAGE fail, seeing as the list presently has more information than the article and I don't see much room for expansion beyond WotY. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all of the arguments above, mostly Clovermoss, explicitly not per the arguments where people have come here entirely to blow off their big bazoo in re whether Jimbo is based or cringe, comma. jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume this is aimed at me, but I did no such thing. If anything here is "cringe" it is your continued insistence on making painfully unfunny personal attacks disguised as hilarious jokes. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The passive-aggressive comment was meant to vaguely indicate slight displeasure with more than one comment, in approximately equal amount for each.

  I did not intend to convey active and severe disapproval, so I did not explicitly name the commenters. My intention was to make them feel mild disapproval for about five seconds and then move on with their day, not to publicly castigate them. jp×g🗯️ 05:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: Unless our Clovermoss can come up with RS for that school kindness award, this is BLP1E. Fails ANYBIO. There are a trillion reasons why being a wikipedian and having a BLP1E article about oneself are a bad combination. My redirect assertion in this case in no way spoils my delight in seeing this award go to a hard-working North American Wikipedian this year. BusterD (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year: per almost everybody above. I don't think there is enough sources to make it beyond a stub unless there is RS coverage of the kindness award. Sohom (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There isn't. I brought it up to add a bit of humour to the situation. No one outside my school cared that I won the kindness award and I'm probably the only person who even remembers that I did. To those not familiar with Ontario's education system, I was 7 years old in grade 2. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/weak delete. Congratulations on the award, but I think some other things are needed for an article. Good luck! Nadzik (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I can't find anything else but coverage of the award, so this appears to be a clear case of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. This is a clear case of WP:BIO1E; very little sourcing exists about this human outside of the context of her winning an award. And, as WP:PAGEDECIDE notes, there are times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. With respect to WP:ANYBIO, I take both the view that Clover is presently better covered in the broader article that provides more context regarding that award than her two-sentence biographical entry would (i.e. that PAGEDECIDE would advise against an article if she were notable), and also the view that the Wikimedian of the Year award does not meet the threshold of being a well-known and significant award or honor that would automatically warrant inclusion (i.e. that she is not presently notable). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Dclemens1971. Balph Eubank (talk) 16:30, 28 August 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!} 07:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of @midnight episodes (2013–14) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of @midnight episodes (2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of @midnight episodes (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of @midnight episodes (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of whoever won each episode of a panel game show is not worthy of an encyclopedia. --woodensuperman 14:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, Internet, Lists, and United States of America. C F A 💬 16:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Normally, I would argue episode lists for a notable TV show are WP:SIZESPLITs from the main series article and therefore notability for the show would factor in to some degree; however, when episodes are aired on a daily basis, listing that information is more WP:INDISCRIMINATE and wouldn't be included in the main article, so the episode list doesn't warrant a split to its own page. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enewetak (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, although the band being named after a place makes searching for information about the band more difficult. The references presently being used in the article are non-RS, such as an online review of another band's song, a webstore and MySpace. toweli (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage to prove notability. A band that has discography from 1995 - 2012 would have had plenty of online sources that show WP:SIGCOV if indeed notable. Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The first two sources used in the article include a brief mention in a discussion of a different band, and a two-sentence review by a blogger of an out-of-print EP. Otherwise the social media-related sources are inadequate and I can find nothing else from reliable media sources. The band got some gigs and minor Internet chatter back in the day, but there's not nearly enough for an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 23 August 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USP Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable content creation company per WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Article is obviously UPE, REFBOMB'd almost entirely by press releases. The award from the John Lennon competition looks like it might be notable, but there's no mention of the company in the sources cited. The "International Songwriting Competition" appears to be a paid award, and again no mention of the company. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Borderline speedy A7/G11. Wikishovel (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Internet, India, and Maharashtra. Wikishovel (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. Looks like promotional article with mostly unreliable sources and some others paid promotions and advertisement. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough coverage in secondary sources. Fail to meet WP:NCORP. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 05:19, 28 August 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 14:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattia El Hilali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A fringe player with almost no significant career (just less than 10 football first team appearances in total, and without a team since a year). I could not find any significant WP:RS articles about him (just the usual career profile stats and some minor transfer reports), apart from a Gazzetta article from 2016 (when he was still a youth player) where the subject is not really covered in the detail that is required for WP:NOTABILITY. [6] Angelo (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No coverage in secondary sources. Only match reports. Not notable enough. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, none of the included sources meet the criteria. They are a mixture of sources that rely entirely on interviews/information provided by the company/execs or regurgitated PR, none include in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and expand. It looks like there are some articles from NYT, WSJ, and Forbes about the company or its products. So, I'd say there are reliable secondary sources that are exclusively about the company. But, I agree they are not in-depth, so I could see an argument for deletion on those grounds. Niashervin (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Niashervin, I agree there are articles in those publications but the question is, do they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. For example, this Forbes article merely regurgitates this announcement - not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. This other Forbes article is from a "contributor" and is not deemed a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability - see WP:FORBES. This in the NYT is a "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided through an interview with the CEO and from the company itself accompanied by a test run of the service, it has very little "Independent Content" about the *company* and fails ORGIND. Finally this WSJ article is almost entirely about a different company with the topic company getting a mention-in-passing with information provided by an exec, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 21 August 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 14:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rasel (catering) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I tagged this as WP:A7. An editor removed the tag with the following edit summary: "Being suspended from operating by the SFA seems significant to me". I don't know how Singapore works, but in the US any restaurant can be sanctioned for health reasons, including a nothing place. Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Speedy nom remover, here. I removed the A7 tag due to sanctions being something significant enough to be reported in even a local newspaper and therefore too significant for A7. However, although I haven't checked, this is unlikely to reach the higher bar of notability. Also, I have notified User:Monophile because they created the page. QwertyForest (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I notified Monophile when I nominated the article. They removed my notification.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Coment: Rasel has a significant amount of coverage, even outside of Singapore, The New Age Parents CNA Yahoo Asian JourneysThe Business Time In my opinion, the catering company should not be added with the restaurant . Catering is a different thing and in its own way in every country. This even got coverage from Singapore's SFA, Rasel is included among the five biggest catering companies of Singapore. Monophile (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. After looking for sources, I could only find information about the health incident.Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing is either regurgitating a report by the Singapore Food Agency on a fine due to failing hygiene standards or a company listing on a website, none meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 26 August 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 Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances). (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Andersson (1930s footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances). This is a disputed redirect from May 2018, due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Andersson which ended in keep in April 2018. The reason for keeping the article then was a guideline that no longer exists, and I don't think our community will keep it for the same reasons today. Note that Swedish football in 1932 and 1933 was a hobby, not a professional game. 15 games is not much of a career either, and the given book source is dubious (cf. Sam Sailor in the old AFD discussion). No information is lost by redirecting, because the same information is found in that list. Geschichte (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom, there doesn't seem to be any modern coverage in Swedish media including Sydsvenskan which would be most likely to cover the subject. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Geschichte: I am not sure why you say the book source is dubious, what's on the page, is what's in the book, which is the stats near the end of the book for the games he play etc. Anyway, redirect per above. Govvy (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's detailed in the previous discussion, but to reply to you, I think the book is dubious in the following regards: (a) whether all three pages are about Hugo Andersson - the same three pages are used as sources in tens or hundreds of articles (b) whether it constitutes sigcov, i.e. contributes to notability; I believe it's just stats. A stat section one would typically put at the end of a book. Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances). Azuredivay (talk) 13:02, 23 August 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 previously declined a speedy deletion nomination under CSD G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) because the new article is distinctly different from the deleted one. However, having investigated further I am convinced that the new version was created by a sockpuppet of the bloced editor NormalguyfromUK, so it qualifies for a G5 deletion. (Incidentally, in the course of my investigation I came to the conclusion that the references in the article are essentially fakes, as almost all of them don't mention the incident at all, and where it is mentioned it is described as a brief and trivial incident, nothing like the claim here of a major diplomatic incident.) JBW (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gramos Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Re-nominating this article for deletion. There is actually no improvement from last time. The whole article fails verifiability and it is based on original research. None of the English-language sources refer to such an incident. We cannot rely on Cold War claims. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Greece. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 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 programs broadcast by Imagine TV#Comedy series. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasuben Jayantilaal Joshi Ki Joint Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Article only contains one ref. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 12:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Comedy_series. 1 source on the page that is unreliable. Missing significant coverage on the series and not much can be found in search engine on reliable secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Comedy_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:11, 22 August 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 10:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely unsourced and random list of airports that seemed to have been deemed "city".

Should be a disambiguation page at most, and at City airport without capital A as it is not a proper noun Elshad (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I understand that what the article creator was thinking of was a list of airports that are close to the urban center of the area they serve, but I don't know what the standardized term for that is, or if there even is such a standardized term. If this article is kept, it should be renamed as "List of ... airports" with the "..." filled in with an appropriate term. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious original research, this is not a real phrase, terminology, or concept. Yes some cities have centrally located airports, typically older and smaller, that can be distinguished from newer and larger airports outside the city center, but there's no clear definition or inclusion criteria here. Several aren't even commercial airports. The article could be much longer with San Diego International Airport or Boeing Field ([7] is a cool map!), but again, this isn't a real thing. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is just OR. It's not in any way a standardised term or used as such. Canterbury Tail talk 13:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly original research. Article is built out with no reliable sources or previously published information, merely an editor-created lists. RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. It's not notable to know if an airport name contains a specific word in it. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of obvious WP:original research. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 17:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is original research that contains no reliable sources and could be confusing. 2600:1011:A18B:93AB:31D0:9320:2756:2034 (talk) 05:20, 28 August 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!} 07:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lesser known actor and producer. Not enough notability for a standalone article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sportspeople, California, Connecticut, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only news coverage I found is this. Does not meet WP:GNG. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 05:26, 28 August 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 by Bbb23 as WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Sarswa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Frost 07:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Frost 07:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are not enough third-party sources. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was Speedy Deleted under WP:G5. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:00, 21 August 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!} 07:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partha Chatterjee (scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks significant coverage. Notability issues. Other than the primary sources cited, nothing reliable found when performed web search. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Some scholarly recognition apparent in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. An academic who has published many monographs with internationally significant schtolarly publishers. Many of these will have attracted significant coverage (and, indeed, be notable in their own right), meaning their author meets WP:NAUTHOR. I quickly googled the title of his most recent book and found reviews in Asian Affairs, Current Anthropology, Reviews in History, American Anthropologist, The Caravan, and History. I then stopped looking. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seriously, not quite Donna Strickland level nomination...but in the ball park. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Josh Milburn's research. The list of monograph publishers (Princeton University Press, Oxford, Columbia) alone should have indicated that this is a thinker who is widely regarded as a major contributor to the field.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep tentatively per WP:HEY if and only if the found resources are added to the external links. Bearian (talk) 08:15, 27 August 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. Procedural close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1M1B was just closed and the nominator didn't take any of the advice left in the closure statement. Please don't turn around and renominate this article a third time this month. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1M1B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears like one of the many organizations recognized by UN.

Parameters:

No significance: apart from being a recognized organization by the UN. Lots and lots of organizations are recognized by the UN.

FAILS NORG Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep with a warning to the nominator. The nom made exactly the same arguments for deletion 35 days ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1M1B and seems to have expected others to do the footwork of making clear deletion rationale, then and now — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just noting that the previous AFD closed as Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Beaulne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

11 years after the last AfD, a search for sources today yielded very little despite claims he gets significant coverage. Nothing in google news and only 1 line mentions in google books. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, Romania, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Even looking in Canadian sources, I can only find an obituary in Gnews, then in general Gsearch, this wiki page, gov't websites and social media. Nothing to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per lack of SIGCOV. There's nothing in the article to suggest notability, and I couldn't find anything in my searches. Yilloslime (talk) 04:04, 22 August 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 13:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia Morph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Concept design for a mobile phone which was never manufacturable (it relied on fantasy tech) and which, in retrospect, had little to no meaningful influence on the industry. Some limited news coverage when it was announced in 2008, but nothing substantial since then. Omphalographer (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. Omphalographer (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Mullarkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and is based on primary sources. Google books search comes up with 4 hits, but they don't appear to be indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep double national champion per #4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please explain how this meets WP:SPORTCRIT Geschichte (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SpacedFarmer, This person seems to be a double champion in the second tier of British speedway racing, which I do not believe is comparably significant to something like Super GT or the British Superbike Championship. I have started a discussion at WT:MOTORSPORT about the notability of motorcycle speedway riders. Please also note that WP:NMOTORSPORT is intended more as a guideline for which articles should require a far more thorough WP:BEFORE search rather than an argument in-and-of itself for keeping or deleting an article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We give articles to footballers in the EFL Championship and below, we give articles to race car drivers who never progress to 2nd tier racing series and below too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How in-depth are your WP:BEFORE searches? There is regular coverage in the British papers, see here. Specifically: Mullarkey back with a bang (Harlow Star, 1986); Mullarkey back at Rye! (Mercury, 1984); and Kevin joins Canterbury (Mercury and Reformer, 1983). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rode in the highest possible speedway league. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 14:38, 22 August 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 03:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Wolk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Given this article was recently proposed for deletion twice by User:BarntToust before those were contested by User:Mushy Yank on the basis of this being "not uncontroversial", I figured this ought to be formally discussed. This article was only created back in April and covers an actress who has only been featured in two WP:RECENT films (one released this year) and two recent television series. It fails the WP:GNG because most of the sources are primarily noting the actress was cast in the media mentioned (most of which are a client page and a social media post). The article fails to establish significant independent coverage of this subject herself aside from purely noting her roles and some brief trivia on a college. If anyone is interested in expanding upon the contents, I would suggest moving this to the draftspace (where it should have been started) to allow for further edits to be made to establish potential notability, especially as many of their roles are fairly recent or still upcoming. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Comment: While this may not be particularly relevant to this discussion, I think it is worth noting that this article's subject apparently took issue with the prior deletion proposal (seen here and here), and based on the comments from an obsessed IP here, I think it is suffice to say that there is some bias that exists but ignores Wikipedia policy. I don't think this would have any impact on this outcome here, though including for transparency. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: Although I fail to see how Ivy Wolk could track down BarntToust (and thank goodness she has not put any identifying details on her user/talk page), openly threatening to SWAT someone (per above) can legally be put forth to authorities as threatening to do illegal calls to law enforcement is, BAD. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Yoda, I'm not concerned about it at all. the LAPD doesn't need the trouble.

Comment I think if this page were to be deleted, the subject may get riled up more based on the above. Take that for what you will. BarntToust (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the same, although I'm overlooking their social media wining as insignificant. If they or one of their followers do make any threats on this site, a block can easily be issued. Anything beyond this site is out of our hands and quite frankly, none of our concern. I don't usually get involved in social media conflicts anymore, though I did take the liberty of reporting their swatting tweet, though I doubt it would go anywhere. I just find this person's whole shtick to be utter bullshit. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up after Jealouse and Bub. Yeah, we don't need drama here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's only one source that covers Wolk specifically - the Variety article. All other sources only have brief mentions, or don't mention Wolk at all. The fact that half the information in this already short article needs better sources isn't encouraging either. Cortador (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, this definitely isn't a clearly notable person. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m a layperson/ casual wikipedia user and not sure how this works so apologies if this is not the correct place to post/not correctly formatted. I am replying since I don’t want her wikipedia page to be deleted. She is a comedian that regularly engages/reaches mid sized audiences in person/on podcasts/social media. I went to one of her shows and later was happy to see that she has wikipedia page with a bit more information about her and what she does, so I like that this page exists and I think it should continue to exist. Thank you. 2A00:23EE:18C8:4A9A:7D47:B0C3:109E:59E3 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, though I'm questionable that my vote is able to count, per above. Technically, even though I proposed deletion twice, I was not the one who opened this particular discussion. I did inform the nominator about the situation but I don't believe this constitutes a COI or anything similar in the context since Trailblazer101 made the call of his own evaluation. My input is based off of the fact that this subject seems to not have clear, established notability. Declaring this all now per due process. BarntToust (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Outside of the Variety article, this comes up [8], only a brief mention regardless. Likely TOOSOON. I don't think drafting will help, there aren't any sources to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only one source offers in-depth coverage from the article. This doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. There needs to be more reliable, secondary sources to write a biography of a living person. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:03, 22 August 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 03:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Moral Conundrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed for NPP, does not pass NBOOK or the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-published e-book with no reviews in WP:RS. (I think you could have just PROD'd this one.) -- asilvering (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. I did not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 26 August 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 03:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massoud Massoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, and Syria. فيصل (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]