Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 11	August 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep these articles. I see no support for Deletion. Editors interested in a possible Merge or Redirect can discuss it at the article talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was not correctly formatted as a bundled nomination so the remaining articles will have to be handled manually rather than with our AFD editing tools. If the nominator wishes to make nominations of multiple articles in the future, please review WP:AFD to see how one should be set up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Shreveport mayoral election

AfDs for this article:

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

More electioncruft articles, except all of these are in a town that is not even in the top 100 largest towns in the United States. Not notable for the usual reasons, Wikipedia is a political database. Fails the general notability guideline, as all sources are WP:MILL in local news stations or papers. Additionally, no coverage is sustaining, failing WP:NEVENT. I am nominating the following articles as well:

2022 Shreveport mayoral election
2018 Shreveport mayoral election
2014 Shreveport mayoral election
2010 Shreveport mayoral election
2006 Shreveport mayoral election
2002 Shreveport mayoral election
1998 Shreveport mayoral election
1994 Shreveport mayoral election
1990 Shreveport mayoral election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ctinus (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm struggling with this one. I am mostly persuaded by your argument, however, I am a sucker for well done election articles with good sources, images, graphics, etc. It may be better served at ballotpedia. I think it's worth keeping as a source of accurate information with pretty graphics. My city is a little larger than Shreveport and our mayoral election is on Wikipedia with far less information. I would't want it deleted. Perhaps a faulty reason I'm giving to keep, but I think that it just scrapes by as a source of general encyclopedia information. Bluefist^talk 02:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument against deletion seems to emphasize its inherent importance (WP:ITSIMPORTANT). However, on Wikipedia, importance is determined by significant, independent coverage, and unfortunately, there isn't a rule that makes municipal elections automatically notable.

If you want to merge these all into a list (mayoral elections in Green Bay, Wisconsin), I would be fine with that, but for now, we have an unmaintainable mess of hundreds of these mayoral elections without explaining their significance. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Shreveport, Louisiana. Other than the 2022 article, the articles are only sourced to primary sources and mostly about candidates without stand-alone articles. The additional coverage of Adrian Perkins and the 2022 election is likely because of editor interest rather than availability of sourcing. And the sources for 2022 are just WP:MILL coverage of candidate entries, endorsements, and results. List of mayors of Shreveport, Louisiana is the only plausible redirect target; it seems reasonable enough as an alternative to deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep per bluefist, articles have a decent amount of coverage Microplastic Consumer (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frustratingly newspapers.com is offline for the Wikilibrary, so I cannot clip articles, but simple searching shows extensive coverage of the elections from the 1990s and early 2000s in The Times (Shreveport, Louisiana). NB: WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage has to be lasting for events to be notable per WP:PERSISTENCE, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinion seems divided between Keep and Redirect. I don't see support for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on two grounds - the lead article is notable since it was covered in the news regionally, and while there's a chance one of the other elections isn't notable, we can't bulk delete these. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 13 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 00:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Magosi

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. All the sources provided are primary. A google news search yields nothing. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Hungary. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT, being a multiple national champion. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer, all sportspeople must meet SPORTCRIT #5 regardless of meeting a sport-specific criterion. Where is the SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same as this amongst others...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round (which I nominated, where are the SIGCOV for these too) SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an article on a sportsperson; these are not comparable, especially as bundled noms almost always fail and the keep !voters weren't even arguing to keep on GNG grounds. I don't think the keep arguments were correct there, but that was a completely different situation. JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were bundled as they have in common is the lack of WP:RS besides a hobbyist newssite. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, he's covered on three pages of Świat Żużla. That should be checked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, finding two stories here and here ("Magosi Norbert is one of the most important figures in Hungarian motorsport") wasn't difficult. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're closer to needing to delete those championship articles than we are to being able to use them as an indication of notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could those participating in this discussion offer their opinions on what should happen with this article? It would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try to get some decisions here alongside the helpful comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay , @BeanieFan11 , @5225C . Just pinging 3 current participants in this AfD that haven't cast a vote. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not much to discuss really, sources in the article are unhelpful (databases and speedway organiser-affiliated outlets) and no signs of significant coverage in the usual places. The lack of a Hungarian language article is somewhat telling. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not swayed by the brief intros to two interviews in the same county paper. No other coverage has turned up. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 15 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 00:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bednář

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it might be too soon. I don't see anything other than mentions in event coverage. But there are mentions in event coverage; [1] is the best one I found; [2] [3] are closer to name-drops. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:48, 6 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!} 02:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant media coverage. WP:NOTJUSTYET. FromCzech (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable and in-depth press coverage. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:52, 16 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 00:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blog rally

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

Not a notable term; arguably not a term at all. Other than the Engage With Grace reference, the sources seem to be in-passing usage of the two words next to each other, or not even that. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Can barely find anything even mentioning the term. Looks like an attempt at promotion. C F A 💬 00:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage of the concept. Right now, it’s a disordered list of poor examples. A better example might be Yearly Kos. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 16 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Perfume

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. Sourced to interviews, PR/churnalism. KH-1 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 6 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!} 23:37, 12 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 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tip the Van

(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. toweli (talk) 00:38, 30 July 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 Connecticut. toweli (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen unless someone can find multiple independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this band. I couldn't. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cullen328. I'm not sure if these are the sources you are looking for, but here are some that I found.

CT Newspaper - Hartford Courant

https://www.courant.com/2019/12/13/tip-the-van-reunion-tour-stopping-at-space-ballroom/

https://www.courant.com/2007/08/02/a-slam-bam-thank-you-to-some-grand-bands/

CT Newspaper - New Haven Register

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Spring-Heeled-Jack-reunites-Friday-and-Saturday-11600584.php

Archive.org copy of the Vans Warped Tour Site from 2010 listing the band

https://web.archive.org/web/20100415160948/http://www.vanswarpedtour.com/warpedtour/bands.asp

Wikipedia Article Listing the Band Having Played the Vans Warped Tour 3x

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warped_Tour_lineups_by_year

Ticket Listing from a CT Music Venue

https://spaceballroom.com/e/tip-the-van-reunion-show--82671932977/

Interview with the Band

https://v13.net/2010/08/interview-with-tip-the-van-singer-nicole-oliva-and-bassist-bryan-howard/

Michigan Newspaper Listing the Band

https://www.mlive.com/entertainment/flint/2010/07/rocker_andrew_wk_returns_to_hi.html

Concert Listings

https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/tip-the-van--2?page=1#concert-table

Concert Review

https://duffguidetoska.blogspot.com/2009/11/duff-gig-review-across-aisle-tip-van.html

If you need more sources to keep this article, I'm happy to keep digging. 137.99.142.26 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the Wikipedia source one, It absolutely does not qualify as reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only source out of those that could possibly contribute to notability is the first one, the others just mention the band or aren't reliable sources. Interviews don't establish notability, although the pre-interview portion has a bit of commentary, so there's that too, I guess. toweli (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, anyone want to look over these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looking for a source review here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The very first source listed above (Hartford Courant, 2019) is legit and reliably if briefly discusses the band's history, but more is needed to support an article here per WP:3REFS. All of the other sources listed above are either unreliable blog reviews by someone who went to a gig, or very brief listings of the band's name in articles about other bands for whom they opened local shows. This band released several albums and got some festival gigs and opening slots for bigger bands, but they seem to have been largely ignored by the reliable music media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:08, 14 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. (non-admin closure) Aydo h8^[contribs] 11:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1xbet

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

Nomination to deletion initiated due to:

1) WP:NOTNEWS + WP:NOTBLOG: Wikipedia article is not list of press releases and company's announcements. Notorious 1xbet Wikipedia article written like a regular report by marketing specialist to his boss about Brand marketing activities. Not any single sentences applies to WP:Notability, except Controversies (See WP:NOCRIT, which means all article's reliable sources cannot refer only Criticism) and information regarding fraud activities.

2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam.

≈ In conclusion, delete/draftify and wait to further re-creation by experienced and recognized author on WP:AFC in completely encyclopedic style with many independent and reliable significant coverage references on each sentence. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 1xBet article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines through its detailed documentation of the company’s background and significant milestones, such as partnerships with FC Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain, this appears to be in a similar fashion to other gambling companies such as Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred just to name a few. These sections and the controversies sections are supported by reliable, independent sources, ensuring unbiased verifiability. The content is not a list of press releases but a factual account of the company's history, developments and controversies which are crucial to understanding their impact in the industry. Any promotional language can be adjusted to enhance the encyclopedic tone and neutrality of the article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1xbet does not look ready for mainspace, but it's notable enough to be draftified, it has to be handled through AfC. Also just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that 1xbet has to have a page in mainspace in such blatant promotion condition. TBH, Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred not doing cross-wiki spam (as 1xbet did), so they exist.

Secondly, notice WP:COI and try to improve the page in constructive way instead of defending blatand promotion. How about Draftify 1xbet and together work on the development from scratch (with other editors on WikiProject Companies) for 4-5 months before it will accomplish all Wikipedia guidelines and policies? So anxious to get an answer. Indiana's Football (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not saying that because other gambling company articles exist that this one should. It was a response to you calling into question how the article is written. My intent was to give other examples within the gambling niche that have the same structure, e.g. 'Lead', 'History', 'Sponsors', 'Controversies' sections, etc.

I agree with you that the 'Controversies' section is important. However, it needs to be a part of a balanced article, and suggesting that the article should only be focused on controversies is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. I want to call into question what your motive is and why it is so important to you that the article only focuses on controversies and nothing else? Do you have a vendetta against the company that influences this need for a negative bias?

I can see another user has left a comment on your talk page stating that you shouldn’t be jumping into areas that are unsuitable for new editors, as this defies Wikipedia guidelines. Unless you have been blocked before and this is a new account you have created? Your account is about 20 days old, but you have the knowledge of an experienced user – something doesn't add up, and you have all of the telltale signs of a sock puppet. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Article(s) cannot be based only on press-releases (WP:SIRS).

2. Article(s) cannot be based only on criticism (even if Criticism with reliable independent significant coverage sources (WP:CRIT)). 3.

3. So how about Draftify an article 1xbet and work on it together for a few months? For example, we can draft History paragraph instead of Ad in form of Expansion section? You still haven't answered, buddy. Indiana's Football (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no necessity to re-write the article as it is already comprehensive and well balanced. Instead of deleting and re-drafting the page, the best thing to do is to focus on improving the current article by updating references, consolidating repetitive information and making any changes that improve readability.

It is obvious you have a biased agenda as you deleted my most recent edit, which contained well-referenced information from a reliable source, whilst you made no attempt to remove any unreferenced information. This serves as proof that you have a vendetta against this company, and this is influencing and driving your agenda to re-draft the page with a focus on controversy. We can constructively edit the current article and have civil discussions on the talk page, but I don't agree to drafting a new article.

You have also ignored my previous point, so I will ask again, how do you have such a deep understanding on the knowledge and usage of advance Wikipedia strategy after editing for only a few weeks? I’m not convinced this is your first time here and I highly suspect you may have been banned before and I don’t think it would be a good idea if you drafted a new article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with you about the article being deleted for the reasons mentioned above, I do agree that some sources could be improved and I have updated them. I still stand by not deleting and instead improving it via constructive talk page discussions. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the 1xbet page history, User:Keith161 after puppet User:Timtime88 fallen down, created another one called Bringmethesunset and User:HanStark to continue promoting corporate brand by loading indefinite number of press releases. Blatant promotion, probably even WP:SALT can be applied. Can you feel puppet's pain across the screen so he hurry up to defend 1xbet here? Request to check page history, user contributions and CheckUserIP could be applied. Indiana's Football (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here. Both editors should refrain from casting aspersions on each other. WP:SPI is where you should inquire about potential sockpuppery, please keep accusations out of AFD discussions which should focus on the merits of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. We need more editors to participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just noticed that the page I edited the infobox of last year was nominated for deletion. Honestly it surprised me because it is one of the most well-written and well-balanced pages in the betting category here on Wikipedia. It excludes any advertisement - as I can see through the history log, the page was violated numerous times by ill-intended users who tried to put their agenda here by placing wrong links in the website link section or tried to put false and poorly referenced information. All these attemps were reverted again and again despite unhealthy attention from the "attackers" - page has been in semi-protection 2 or 3 times as I can see through the history.

Current state of the page has a lot of unreferenced information as well - as someone who did some editing on this article before, I can try and add some resources to the information I can find here (mainly the infobox, controversies and sponsorship section).

Another thing that surprised me was that the initial edit here removed some of the well-referenced (and new) parts of the sponsorship section. These things are easily found on the web and are covered thoroughly by different resources since it is concerns big football clubs and the leagues in Europe.

I believe that under the Wiki rules 1XBET article doesn’t alter from other betting-related pages (especially the ones about the brands and companies), yet still it was nominated for deletion.

In the coming days I will try to add references here and add up-to-date information, removing false or made-up parts of it. HanStark (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some resources to the page. Also I've tried to add some up-to-date information regarding betting deals, will try to find more information about the company that can be added in the general information section about the company's history.

Hope my input can help the wiki admins. HanStark (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Removed some parts that were mentioned by users below as a sponsored content from paid resources. Went through the article and also removed some of the parts that seems sketchy to me (e.g. sponsorship of not-so-relevant leagues that only have the generic press-release). As of August 12th, the article seems fine for me to stay and meets WP:GNG. HanStark (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: The article’s citations consist mostly of partnership announcements and sponsored articles, such as those from Outlook India and The Daily Guardian, these two sources are clearly sponsored. I haven’t found any reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. I tried searching on Google, but it’s full of promotional articles, blogs, coupons, and announcements. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I’m unsure what will happen to this AfD, especially since the nominator is blocked. If someone can share sources with in-depth coverage, they are welcome to do so. GrabUp - Talk 13:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the review of GrabUp the sources do not appear to be independent, and therefore alignment with the WP:GNG is not shown. C 679 04:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added new references which meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I've also removed a lot of cruft and sharpened the focus of the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can you share the three best sources that can help the article pass GNG/NCORP? GrabUp - Talk 13:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GrabUp, GNG/WP:NCORP looks for multiple sources, and while three sources is recommended, only two are required to satisfy the guidelines. Nevertheless, this from The Guardian provides sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" to meet GNG/NCORP, as does this from Sports Illistrated. There are also other articles which meet the criteria such as this from FTM (Follow The Money) and this in the Sunday Times as well as this report from the Sports Integrity Initiative. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the sources, and I am convinced that these sources pass the subject WP:GNG. Therefore, Keep. GrabUp - Talk 16:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course KEEP if you prefer to ignore 2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam. 185.12.142.253 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above. C 679 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course KEEP if you prefer to ignore 2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam. 185.12.142.253 (talk) 18:23, 12 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, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aydoh8, can you please explain why you decided to "relist" this AfD? WP:RELIST advises a relisting for a number of reasons, none of which are evident here, especially when it now appears that consensus to Keep has been reached. I note your activities at AfDs have previously been called into question. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close it as keep, but I didn't know whether it would be reverted by an admin again. I'll probably go ahead and close anyway. Aydo h8^[contribs] 11:39, 13 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. A clear consensus now to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Future Party

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

Non-notable protest/vanity political party. Was formerly a redirect to its founder/leader, Dominic Cardy, a former New Brunswick New Democrat who was elected to the provincial legislature as a Conservative and later expelled from the Conservative caucus. In 2023 after the federal Conservative Party elected Pierre Poilievre its new leader, Cardy and a small number of disgruntled party members split off and formed their own party, at one time called "Centre Ice Conservatives", later "Centre Ice Canadians", and now ~~registered~~ eligible to register as the Canadian Future Party. This party got a blip of coverage when it was formed last September, including a hit piece used as a reference here which opines in its first paragraph, "this tiny group of disgruntled politicos has no political future in Canada". It has had not a single bit of coverage since, other than very brief passing mentions in routine coverage of federal politics. The article as it stands is a promotional coat rack leaning on the prestige of a few notable political figures who were associated with the party's predecessor groups before splitting from the CPC, but are not evidently currently involved with it at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Canada. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the party has just met Elections Canada eligibility requirements which means they have passed the notability threshold and as of July 22, 2024 are listed as an "eligible party" on the Elections Canada website [4]. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wellington Bay, WP:NORG is very clear that political parties are not awarded "inherent notability" simply for existing, and must meet WP:GNG (WP:ORGCRIT). Curbon7 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at List of political parties in Canada our practice has been that recognition by Elections Canada or a provincial equivalent establishes inherent notability. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no such thing as inherent notability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, given that they have managed to pass Elections Canada's criteria, vanity project or not, they will be as notable as any other minor party soon if they aren't already. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When they actually get someone elected, which likely won't happen, then we can have an article about them; "pie in the sky" hopes aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Having someone in office is not a requirement for notability. There are numerous articles on parties around the world that have never elected anyone. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite correct. People's Party of Canada also fits the line of having a Wikipedia page despite never gaining a seat and being an offshoot of a disgruntled former parliamentarian.
        
        And if we want to talk about vanity, there are the pamphlets of the Communist Party and Marxist-Lennist attacking each other. Both also have a Wiki and no seats.
        
        Here is a list of all official parties:
        
        https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e
        
        And because it is now an official party, it merits it's on article instead of a large subsection on the interim leader's page. Marveloushistorian (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        But getting elected will give them coverage, was my point. We have nothing about this person/party. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep: Political Science prof here (I focus partly on Canadian Politics). 1) CFP is an officially recognized federal party; 2) they were created by a number of high profile political actors (not really a vanity party in any meaningful sense - but even if they were this wouldn’t be a reason to delete the article since other vanity parties do have articles, such as the PPC); 3) there are already Wiki articles for significantly smaller parties (including Maverick Party); 4) they are at least noteworthy enough to have been granted a public platform by CPAC and all major news outlets ; 5) we should aim to err on the side of increasing the number of articles for legitimate/recognized parties rather than trying to gatekeep for political purposes (I.e., more access to more information and viable options for voters is beneficial for democracy); 6) because of Canada’s multi-party system, even smaller parties like CFP can play a big part in electoral politics and policy discussions; 7) this party is effectively an attempt to reincarnate the Progressive Conservative Party and revitalize the longstanding Red Tory tradition in Canadian federal politics, so lots of opportunities to link with other existing articles. 2607:F2C0:ECAA:600:3830:E0BB:2920:B8C8 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen Per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." Also per WP:ORGCRIT: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - this fails that test, and political parties are not exempt. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Quote; if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject

1. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/from-centre-ice-conservatives-to-canadian-future-a-new-federal-party-takes-shape-1.6570315

2. https://jacobin.com/2023/10/canada-new-future-party-centrism-dominic-cardy-politics

3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-federal-centrist-party-canada-1.6972891

4. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-taube-canadian-future-a-party-for-losers

5. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/09/20/news/upstart-federal-political-party-wants-provide-centrist-alternative

This is not including the coverage of 'Centre Ice Canadians' which the party emerged out of. Wilson (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: incorrect, they’ve been the subject of coverage by all major national news outlets and were granted a public platform by CPAC. So, this actually passes the test. 2607:F2C0:ECAA:600:3830:E0BB:2920:B8C8 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - well, given that the party has announced it will be running candidates in the upcoming byelections and general election it is likely that it will be receiving more independent, verifiable coverage this year and next, so I ask that if the decision is to not keep the the article, that it be replaced with a redirect to Dominic Cardy so that future editors don't have to start from scratch once there are more sources. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same reasoning as yours. Black roses124 (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. FYI, a subject isn't judged to be notable by potential future coverage. What sources exist today?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are, as far as I can find 8-9 news articles that mention the party. The wiki page itself has 10 (2 internal, 8 news). Most minor parties have more sources but have also been around longer (except the Centrist Party which only has 4 sources). The Animal Protection Party of Canada has been around since 2005 but if you exclude links to Elections Canada results it has less sourcing than this wiki page. Looking at formerly active political parties gives a mixed bag with some parties having more references and some having fewer (including, oddly, the Progressive Conservative Party). Wilson (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gay 182.18.198.220 (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen: There was a burst of coverage in Fall 2023 when the party first came along [5], but nothing since... Non-notable party that no one has talked about in almost a year now. The next election in Canada likely isn't until this time next year, so if there's been no coverage, I'm not sure what else will pop up. I've not heard of them in the year since these were published. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cardy was apparently arrested in Toronto on August 2nd; I've only learned this by visiting their facebook page. You'd expect the leader of a political party getting arrested to make some sort of news, but nothing was reported. This is very much a non-notable party at this point... Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true at all. There was a national post article about it. Here's the article. It also appeared on a Global News TV report. Saying that it got no coverage at all is not at all fair. 199.243.125.91 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that article has at most 6 sentences, which isn't enough for notability. There is still a lack of extensive coverage about this person or the political party. Getting arrested isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still honestly believe there is not enough media coverage? Black roses124 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you say yes just look at all the people saying keep and the links they’ve provided. Black roses124 (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, it is debatably on the same level of notability for Canada, as small vanity parties like the Forward Party and others are for the United States, there are much less notable US and European Political parties that have been given articles as well. This wouldn't be a conversation if it was an American vanity party that came up, why should it be for a Canadian party of the same level? And given that the party is likely to make a notable impact in upcoming by-elections or the next general it is something that has been notable recently and will get even more attention as time goes on as well. Unova Yellow (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dominic Cardy. I don't see enough coverage separate from him. If this is more than a vanity party, there probably will be coverage during the next election. But that isn't reason to have an article now. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/a-former-progressive-conservative-who-calls-pierre-poilievre-terrifying-is-launching-a-new-political-party/article_4d9956a0-5987-11ef-9f45-232cb62f5150.html

New coverage with more after the candidates are announced tomorrow. It seems the article is going to remain relisted just long enough to get new coverage and negate a primary objection to the article's notability. Wilson (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-future-party-launches-1.7294230

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/not-left-not-right-but-forward-dominic-cardy-officially-launches-new-centrist-federal-political-party-1.7000587

https://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/canadian-future-party-officially-launches--august-14-2024?id=49a3affb-83c9-4986-af3a-f6788fddbead Wilson (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly even more media coverage and there is going to be even more coverage once we get closer to the election. Black roses124 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will be contesting elections and getting a reasonable amount of media coverage. Seems silly to delete when more coverage is pretty clearly coming in a matter of days as well. 100.0.177.22 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Party announced its formal launch 14 August 2024 at the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery in an event broadcast live on the Canadian Parliamentary Channel^[1]. The launch was covered by the CBC^[2], CTV^[3], and Canadian Press^[4]. The announcement accompanies the nomination of candidates to run in byelections in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun in Montréal and Elmwood—Transcona in Winnipeg. Since the announcement, the Party has been the subject of active discussion in multiple Reddit forums^[5]^[6]. Evanleibovitch (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They officially launched the party today (in EST time at least) and now that it's official, it deserves some merit. User:Iwuedfh — Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Further evidence of notability (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadian-future-party-centrist-option/) leads me to believe that it warrants its own page. Cyali (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Party launched on August 14th 2024. They had a presser of CPAC, have a candidate, Mark Khoury, for the LaSalle--Émard--Verdun By-election and are in the process of nominating one for Elmwood–Transcona . Lastly, the interim leader had an interview on CBC on the evening of August 14, 2024.

https://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/canadian-future-party-officially-launches--august-14-2024?id=49a3affb-83c9-4986-af3a-f6788fddbead

https://www.elections.ca/Scripts/vis/candidates?L=e&ED=24037&EV=59&EV_TYPE=3&PROV=QC&PROVID=24&QID=-1&PAGEID=17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2KGl84XXNQ&t=44s Marveloushistorian (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has also been discussed at some length as Centre Ice Canadians; see the Globe article referenced above. 13:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Discussed at length by multiple national media, on multiple occasions, over the space of a year, registered with elections Canada, running candidates in by-elections, founder is himself notable. 120000 results on google for the exact search phrase (by comparison, I clicked random article twice and got a number theory article with 1200 google results, similarly, the maverick party also has a wiki page and I only got ~8000 results, and much less media coverage).69.173.141.86 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they are contesting elections and other registered parties have articles.

JSwift49 21:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If there can be articles for the Marijuana Party, Marxist-Leninists, Centrists, Animal Protection, Veterans Coalition, and Free Party among many others, which all have similarities to this one as being relatively obscure and having no actual representation, there is no reason this article shouldn't exist. They are recognized by Elections Canada and are contesting 2 important byelections that will occur next month. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cremastra (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they are an official party now and per what other Keep discussions have mentioned. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 12:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the excessive national media coverage I've seen for this part in the last few days (CBC, Globe and Mail, CTV, etc.), as well as the biggest local paper in the country (Star), I'm surprised this is still open. I didn't disagree with the nomination when I saw it last month, but I think events have overtaken the discussion. Perhaps User:Ivanvector can now withdraw this nomination

Keep as others have pointed out, considering all the recent coverage it seems obvious at this point. Kryptec (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 16 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!} 23:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Atilla (Turkish Invasion of Cyprus)

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

This article should be deleted, as it seems to overlap with Turkish invasion of Cyprus. LR.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Cyprus, and Turkey. LR.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:REDUNDANTFORK Aintabli (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Changing my vote to keep as I overlooked the recent move and the overall context of the article. Aintabli (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SPINOFF The article Turkish invasion of Cyprus only provides an overview of the military activities in three short paragraphs, however this article vastly expands on that information. Any overlap is just enough to provide context to this extra detail Farrier-as (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legitimate SPINOFF. Not sure how this could have been nominated or supported. The PRODding without as much as an edit summary was a disgrace. If there is no case whatsoever for deletion, an article should NEVER be considered for PROD! Yet another user moved the article without any debate. Maybe we should limit editing access to this article. gidonb (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: per WP:SPINOFF and other keep votes above. The sub-topic is notable enough and there is enough sourced information for it’s own article. Lordseriouspig 22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least change the name to "Combat operations during the invasion of Cyprus" as operation atilla was the name of the Turkish military operation
Keep and Move back to its original title Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The article is a legitimate spinoff for military operations during the invasion. Confusion seems to be caused by the fact that earlier this year it was unilaterally and without discussion moved to its current somewhat misleading title.--Staberinde (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that too ShovelandSpade (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert name to original title. Constantine ✍ 10:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. Please remember to sign your comments. And don't worry about the article page title, that can be discussed if the article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 5 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, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:22, 12 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!} 23:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ogan

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

CEO of a small hedge fund, not large enough to lend notability to either; not long out of university, with few publications. The references are about related topics but not about Ogan, who is mentioned tangetially if at all. Searches find routine listing and social media (with insufficient followers to use that to justify notability). Klbrain (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, China, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The majority of the articles are about Tesla or a Chinese car company; Ogan is asked about what he thinks about xyz thing... None of these are about Ogan. There is no coverage about this individual and this shows a lack of notability. I don't find any articles we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The best source I could find was this March 2024 article in the Shenzhen Daily which has some biographical coverage like this:
Watching drone shows, using drone delivery services, taking robotaxis, turning to AI tools to increase efficiency ... such novel happenings over the past few years in Shenzhen is now Taylor Ogan's daily reality. The Snow Bull Capital CEO relocated to Shenzhen, from Boston, in January 2023. ... Shenzhen holds a special place for Ogan since he grew up listening to his parents and grandparents talk about the Chinese city they visited in the early 1990s. The 28-year-old has been to China many times. He first visited Shenzhen in 2015 and returned in 2019.
However, rather than covering his biographical background, most of the article cites his opinion about the electric vehicle industry or Shenzhen. The other sources I found largely were passing mentions or interview content. The subject is close to passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria but does not meet the notability guidelines yet. If reliable sources continue covering him and eventually provide significant biographical background (rather than just interview content), I would support the recreation of the article. Cunard (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and subsequent comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:00, 17 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Dead Yet (nonprofit)

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

The article outlines no particular notablity of the group. While sources establish its existence, no notable work or membership is described. One of the articles actually describes it as a "Tiny Disability-rights Group". There is simply nothing of particular note here. SecretName101 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: There are a few more sources on Google, including on the Library of Congress Website [6] and some academic papers, but the name makes it quite hard to search for as a lot of stuff comes up just using the express in the context of assisted suicide. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 01:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Notcharizard Library of Congress page is only archived copies of the org's website as part of the LOC's web archive project. Not necessarily something that establishes note for the org SecretName101 (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG - I don't see any source which gives a biography of the group, the sources I see only briefly mention its existence.

---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:16, 14 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 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective PAC

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

Pretty much all in-depth coverage I could find on Collective PAC were either about its founders (Stefanie and Quentin James) or articles where its founders were quoted, with a short snippet mentioning that they founded a PAC. You could make a decent case that Stefanie and Quentin James are notable, but the same can't really be said for Collective PAC. An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. Most coverage I could find of this PAC is like that: an article about PACs more broadly that simply mentions Collective PAC in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom's assessment. I have been unable to find significant coverage of this PAC. Most of the coverage I could find are quotes from the PAC's founders or brief mentions of the PAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 5 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, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:20, 12 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 request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle James Hauser

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about a musician, and added an interview to the External Links section. I cannot find other independent, reliable, significant coverage to add - there is a footnote about his teaching in a book about music education, but I don't think it's significant enough to add. I don't think the existing references demonstrate that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. There are few secondary sources listed; the best may be the concert announcement in Connect Savannah. Redirect to Rapidgrass is a possibility, but he was performing before joining them, and is only mentioned in the article about them as a past member. Tacyarg (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Virginia. Tacyarg (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 15 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 , noting no opposition to the sources used in the article's significant expansion. czar 20:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Margarete of Thurn and Taxis

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

No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and each other. The only notable source currently is a notice of her wedding in the New York Times, so her article can be redirected to her husband's which already covers that event. All the other mentions are trivial or directory entries. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Belgium. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alessandro, 1st Duke of Castel Duino (although I doubt the Duke's notability as well). I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Duke is barely notable so why redirect it to him? He is probably less notable than Margarete because all that's really stated on his page is his marriages and issue. Azarctic (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep she is notable for her wedding (WP:1E) where she obviously played a significant part in. the event was notable because most ruling princely families in Europe were represented at the wedding. And some sources are secondary but reliable (WP:BASIC). Azarctic (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1E says we likely shouldn't create an article for a person who is only notable for one event. It doesn't establish a person's notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that but that isn’t the only thing she’s notable for and WP:1E is if the person plays a significant role in an event and if the individual is notable then it should be put into their article. Also that’s just one of the reasons why we should keep the article because it goes into depth about the event as well as her biography which has reliable citations. Azarctic (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think the wedding is notable in itself (if it was there would be more than just a notice in the NYT) but what is this other thing they are notable for that you are alluding to but not actually stating? I can't seem to see it in the article. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it isn’t notable which it is, why should her page be deleted it still has enough coverage, her husband and father are probably less notable as her husband has only one reference so if anything he should be redirected/deleted, not Margarete’s page which should not be redirected or deleted. Azarctic (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen per nomination. Article only contains information about relationships to family members and her wedding, nothing to indicate independent notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what most articles on Wikipedia are like though. Especially royalty ones because marriage is a big event in royalty. And not once has the article mentioned anything about relationships to family members except for her birth and marriage which is usual for a Wikipedia biography. Azarctic (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered an argument to avoid. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No less notable than her husband or father, both of whom have extensive articles. Plenty of RS coverage to substantiate notability. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The keep arguments are variants of 'she was present at one notable event' or 'we have articles on other non-notable people that she's related to'. These are arguments for deletion not retention. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven’t even made a proper reason to delete the article. Azarctic (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, being present at one notable event does not make that attendee notable, nor does having non-notable relatives. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying your vote to deleting it is because she was not notable at one notable event… I don’t think that’s a proper reason still… Azarctic (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I would have advocated for a redirect to the articles on his father or husband but they don't appear to be more notable than her. In any case, I don't think the article should be entirely deleted because there is some coverage in outside sources. Keivan.f^Talk 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep the page as she was not known only after her marriage to Prince Gaetano of Bourbon-Parma. I have some information about her that is present in some books on the house of Bourbon-Parma (the one by Juan Balanso in French and another in Italian). If I have time I will try to add information. I thank the creator of the page. I was just thinking of creating the page on Princess Margarete myself.
MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. IMO, she is enough to be notable per GNG. 81.231.253.231 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC) — 81.231.253.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep satisfied with MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma's work and i can see she was public figure in her time. I also found this [[7]]. Thanks 223.204.71.128 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources of her times proves that she was a public figure, no less than Paris Hilton or Pippa Middleton today. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets basic notibility requirements with substantial coverage in reliable sources.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 17 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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet, with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoora

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

The person is Not notable to be added in the Wikipedia. The article is entirely promotional. The references are just some 'fashion style' non reliable non notable sources.

Golaecan (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not clean up, just tag the article with promo tag. There is a lot of sources talking about him on Google News. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I remove the fancruft and looked at the sources presented in the article and elsewhere. Being a former bandmember of AA (band) and being on Bigg Boss has attracted quite bit of press, making Blp1e inapplicable. Discard some of the unreliable sources, PR, and focusing on features such as https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/k-pop-singer-aoora-ventures-into-the-tamil-music-industry/articleshow/107967147.cms and https://www.dailyo.in/social/who-is-k-pop-singer-aoora-and-why-was-he-singing-woh-kisna-hai-in-mathura-41781 reveal Aoora’s notability. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, original poster was blocked for sockpuppeting anyway. seefooddiet (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment - what is the meaning of some 'fashion style' ? 223.204.71.128 (talk) 00:26, 16 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 Beverley#Culture and amenities. czar 20:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley town fair

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

This article appears to be about a livestock market that has changed date and location a few times. I was able to find a reference to medieval Saturday markets, but that 1. doesn't support the implied claim of continuity 2. still wouldn't be a claim of notability since most medium sized towns have markets of one form or another.

Looking at a current list of What's on in Beverley, there's nothing with this exact name. It's clearly the case that there are and were several markets, fairs, festivals and other community events in Beverley - searching online brings up results for the Festival of Christmas, Beverley Puppet Fest before any mention of a livestock fair - none individually notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

I would redirect to Beverley#Culture and amenities. As the article is currently entirely unsourced, I don't believe there's anything that needs merging or preserving. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United Kingdom, and England. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Beverley#Culture and amenities. A brief sentence of its existence could be supported with this source, I don't think it needs more than that but as it seems to have been a central trading point before the development of Hull it could be at least worth a mention. Suonii180 (talk) 19:30, 4 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!} 16:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Beverley, if something really has to be done - this source gives 7 pages on the markets and fairs of Beverley, which is a well-known historic town - I don't think much BEFORE was done here. Ingratis (talk) 18:24, 19 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!} 07:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of titleholders under ALV Pageant Circle

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

There's no indication that these two pageants together constitute an encyclopedic topic and the article is WP:SYNTH. We already have articles on each pageant, namely Miss Grand Philippines and Miss World Philippines, plus as a quasi notable grouping, Philippines at the Big Four beauty pageants which is quite sufficient for the topic. N.b. ALV Pageant Circle is a redlink, this has the appearance of trying to bootstrap it to notability and/or provide WP:PROMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's needless repetition of information provided elsewhere. Sciencefish (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:59, 13 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 Fullerton School District. ✗plicit 00:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parks Junior High School

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable middle school. Being one of ~300 schools per year to have won a National Blue Ribbon Schools Program is not a claim of notability. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Fullerton School District. I agree with the nominator that simply having a Blue Ribbon School is not sufficient to bestow notability on a middle school, but redirects are cheap and a good ATD. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fullerton School District, which will allow the content and history to be retained. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 14 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 MDO (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Avilés

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

Puerto Rican singer who was a member of bands Euphoria, Explosion, MDO and Menudo: La Reunion. Can find nothing to indicate notability outside the various bands. Redirection per WP:BANDMEMBER seems appropriate here but unsure which band should be the target. John B123 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Puerto Rico. John B123 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep since you claimed that Redirection for Caleb to WP:BANDMEMBER is "appropriate" for you, but I'm here to tell you that he is notable back then, he just felt like going back to private life since he felt burnt out, simply because Euphoria was mostly popular in Puerto Rico, Venezuela, and Curacao since they mostly toured those three countries, though they were popular in other Latin Countries. For explosion, they were somewhat popular in parts of the United States, fairly popular in Puerto Rico and some parts of Latin America. MDO doesn't need an explaination since they were at the height of their popularity though Caleb did have trouble, he received a lot of praise and lastly for Menudo:La Reunion, even though Caleb joined late, he was praised in smaller audiences in Brazil and Puerto Rico. Once again, I vote keep. Bottleboy04 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I agree with Bottleboy04 says, I would also like to vote keep. I also found out my dad is mutuals with Caleb and he told me that Caleb retired because he wanted to start a family as it mentions on an archive website that he has a daughter right now. She's currently going to eleventh grade now, but last time I heard, he currently lives somewhere in North or South Carolina. Again, I would vote keep. Blanketskiller12 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Socks don't have standingStar Mississippi 01:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MDO (band) per WP:BANDMEMBER. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:25, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vitali Yatsko

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

A 'senior coach' is not the manager and is not an inherently notable position, especially since WP:FOOTYN is no longer valid. I can't find anything more than passing mentions of Yatsko, including the 4 references already used. My own searches yielded nothing better than Sports.kz and Sports Daily, both passing mentions again. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Moldova, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, Govvy (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:49, 18 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Chaptal de Chanteloup

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

LinkedIn-style resume of a successful career teacher and organisation leader but nothing here passes WP:NPROF or any other notability criteria. Apparently an autobiography. Mccapra (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and France. Mccapra (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found. Almost nobody has cited their publications. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a prolific author but I didn't find the book reviews that could help him pass WP:AUTHOR. No evidence of any WP:PROF notability criterion. And if there exist in-depth sources about him that might contribute to WP:GNG, they are obscured by the many sources in the article and elsewhere that are by him not about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 13 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Dmitruk

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The references and external links are all database type entries. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not see WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:NSPORT. If Russian sources turn up, please ping. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:05, 19 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!} 23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kübra (series)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Has zero sources except for an IMDB link much less GNG sources.Tagged by others for wp:notability since May North8000 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources= https://www.leisurebyte.com/kubra-review-cagatay-ulusoy/ (in English, but I am not familiar with that site; a few other sources in English, such as https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/kubra-complete-list-cast-turkish-drama-thriller) ; https://www.programme-tv.net/news/series-tv/345078-kubra-que-vaut-la-nouvelle-serie-mysterieuse-de-netflix/ ;https://www.libremedia.ca/kubra-lexplication-de-la-fin-qui-laisse-sans-voix/ ; https://actus.sfr.fr/cine-series/series/kubra-la-serie-netflix-aura-t-elle-droit-a-une-saison-2_AN-202401250004.html ; https://actualitte.com/article/115008/adaptation/netflix-adapte-un-roman-turc-avant-une-traduction-francaise ; (in French); https://www.nit.pt/cultura/televisao/kubra-a-netflix-continua-a-investir-nas-super-producoes-da-turquia https://www.metroworldnews.com.br/entretenimento/2024/02/16/esta-serie-turca-de-acao-e-misterio-na-netflix-tem-todos-viciados-e-prova-que-nem-tudo-e-drama/ (in Portuguese). In those two languages more sources exist. + article in Gazete Duvar accessible through the Turkish WP page

There are more than enough references in reliable media to retain the page in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources given above establish notability per WP:GNG. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Almost all Netflix Turkey original productions get enough attention to make them notable. Especially in this case, a production from The Taylan Brothers, there's no way it's not notable.Tehonk (talk) 05:43, 18 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!} 21:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honey_G (rapper)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality TV contestant. She has had no career beyond being a novelty act on one series on The X Factor, with no success in the industry outside of that. SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't a measure of talent; it's a measure of significant coverage in reliable sources. Subject is still getting coverage years after X-Factor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The link is to a disambiguation page. It should be Honey G (rapper). Athel cb (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep as to both the individual, for whom flash-in-the-pan coverage is coverage still, and the disambiguation page necessitated by their ambiguity with another equally obscure topic. BD2412 T 16:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:BASIC pretty easily. C F A 💬 20:48, 12 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. czar 20:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Herald

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

Temporary activity of two journalists. The website folded even though we gave it unwarranted publicity for 5 years. Refs are irrelevant to notability. No article on Hewiki. No indication that this meets NCORP and no encyclopedic value even under the GNG (a lower bar than the applicable standard). The entry has a strange focus on the biblical sources of the website's logo. gidonb (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Israel. gidonb (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails NCORP. C F A 💬 20:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more a site tour of a non-notable blog which seems to take its design too seriously, than actually talking about what its content involved. Nate • (chatter) 22:21, 12 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 diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Malinaccier (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Bolivia, London

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

No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Very little content, effectively a directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, United Kingdom, and Bolivia. AusLondonder (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Just a 2 line article which confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London (or make an anchor for Bolivia and target that). This is a plausible search term about which we have content so we best serve our readers by taking them to that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 13 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 request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iceberg Vodka

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

The page is a slightly spammy product description of a vodka product. The only claim to notability is an unsourced one that it won the 2006-07 Golden Icon Award for Best Vodka. But what is this award? There is an eponymous entertainment award, but searching for an award by this name for vodka only leads to this product. The page claims this is the Travolta Family Entertainment award, which is not the same, as far as I can tell, as the show business award. Travolta Family Entertainment is a quickly abandoned trademark [8], and I suspect the award was invented so that it could be given to this vodka. Certainly no evidence to the contrary. If that is correct, this is unashamed product spam. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Products. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found that would help to establish notability. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:11, 15 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 request the article's undeletion. Ignoring the suspicious nomination, there was no objection to the sole Delete view. Owen× ☎ 17:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Holcomb

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

I propose the deletion of the Wikipedia article on Noah Holcomb for the following reasons:

Lack of Notability:

According to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, a topic is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Upon thorough research, Noah Holcomb does not meet this criterion. The available sources primarily consist of minor mentions and local coverage, which do not constitute significant coverage. Insufficient Reliable Sources:

The sources cited in the article do not meet the standard of reliable, secondary sources. Most of the references are primary sources or lack the editorial oversight needed to be considered reliable. There is a scarcity of independent coverage from reputable media outlets, academic publications, or other authoritative sources. Failure to Meet Sports Notability Criteria:

For athletes, Wikipedia's Sports Notability Guidelines specify that individuals should have achieved significant success in major international competitions at the highest level. Noah Holcomb has not been documented to have such achievements. His sports career, as detailed in the article, does not include any significant milestones that would warrant notability under these guidelines. Verifiability and Independence Issues:

Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy requires that all content must be verifiable and based on reliable sources. Much of the information in the article lacks independent verification and appears to be derived from sources closely associated with Holcomb, thereby compromising the objectivity required for a Wikipedia article. Consensus from the Community:

Previous discussions and evaluations by the Wikipedia community have highlighted similar concerns regarding the subject's notability. There has been a consistent lack of support for maintaining the article due to the reasons mentioned above. Given these points, I believe the article on Noah Holcomb does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I recommend deletion to maintain the quality and reliability of the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUserExplorer23 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, California, and Iowa. Skynxnex (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails SPORTBASIC/GNG. Couldn't find any significant coverage at all. Though I recommend the nominator not use ChatGPT to generate their comments in the future. C F A 💬 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noting that the nominator's two edits are to nominate this article for an AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 17 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 14:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resmi R Nair

AfDs for this article:

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

I am curious about how this person meets WP:GNG criteria. This article does not appear to satisfy the necessary guidelines for notability.The only reliable citation in this article pertains to the news of this person arrest in a sex racket.But this incident alone does not contribute to her notability or prominence.This article was previously deleted thrugh AFD Disscusion. Padavalam🌂 ► 14:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and Kerala. Padavalam🌂 ► 14:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appears to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E. The sources that come close to being significant only cover their arrest related to the online racket. I can’t find any other independent sources with significant coverage of the subject, so it fails to meet WP:GNG. I would like to hear the author’s comments on this article; perhaps they can provide significant coverage of the subject beyond the racket case. If they succeed, the subject might pass GNG. GrabUp - Talk 14:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had created this for her career as a model, she was also instrumental in establishing the Kiss of Love protest. The arrest was secondary. I assumed the Kiss of Love protest was what made her notable for wikipedia here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that the Kiss of Love protest was significant, and she played a central role in it. However, does that make her inherently notable? I am unable to find significant coverage of her in articles related to the protest. GrabUp - Talk 14:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other notable achievements or news articles about her apart from those related to the Kiss of Love and controversy? If not, delete. CheramanMale (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, per nom. Charliehdb (talk) 15:07, 12 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 Kenya Gazette. Malinaccier (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetted officer (Kenya)

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

A gazetted officer simply means a government employee whose appointment gets notified in the Gazette. I don't think it warrants a standalone article, WP:PAGEDECIDE. Article is also uncited and not received WP:SIGCOV with only single reference, which is barely reliable (fails WP:RS). Hence, looks like article is made out of original research. TheProEditor11 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kenya. TheProEditor11 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kenya Gazette. the content is unsourced but sources exist that show the term is in use [9] [10]. But this article would be merely a definition; discussing it at Kenya Gazette is sufficient. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kenya Gazette: as a brief paragraph. Does not warrant its own page. Owen× ☎ 16:53, 19 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. Based on notability guidelines on politicians reaffirmed by !voters in this discussion, this subject is clear-cut notable. Being a minister of several ministries on a federal level equivalent, and serving as a legislator again on a federal level equivalent is a clear-cut pass on NPOL. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hikmat Zaid

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

The article is highly promotion and extremely non neutral. It does use sources for some material but other material is extremely lacking in basic citations. Some sources cite to sources that are, in my opinion, not reliable at all. Others are to Fatah or Fatah-related organizations for which the subject was a non-trivial member and therefore not independent.

Created by a COI contributor and previously draftified and disputed. Creator has now been blocked for sockpuppetry for trying to deceive the connection they have had to the subject, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abul7ik/Archive#10 August 2024. I understand that, given the COI, this could still be sent back to AfC but, given the block, I think that would be a round-about way of just {{g13}}ing the draft.

I also think this article is on the cusp of being {{g11}}ed but I may be biased given that my previous attempts to aid in fixing the draft have clearly been met in bad faith. I think any attempt to add maintenance tags would double the size of the article. My opinion is that it exists solely to promote the subject, and there is valid justification for a TNT deletion here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Palestine. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. He meets NPOL as a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council (I checked, it's verifiable here). The entire article is obviously written by AI (scores 100% on GPTZero) so it should be trimmed down to a stub that can be expanded neutrally and verifiably. I have also tagged all the images for dated deletion on Commons because they are clearly not the uploader's own work. C F A 💬 15:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Certainly notable, but likely needs WP:TNTing due to the amount of AI used. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A note to the closer: as the nominator, given the NPOL consideration per CFA, I think a Stubify close would be considered inline with my TNT nomination. No opposition to that ATD, as it were. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We shouldn't delete the Wikipedia page on Hikmat Zaid. He's a key political figure, and plenty of pages exist about less important people. If the article needs workᅳlike if it reads too much like it was written by a botᅳlet's just fix it, rather than remove it. This page actually has value in allowing people to understand current politics a little better. Let's work on improving this, not deleting it.

Drake Thompson (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar I began process of trimming down the thread starting with the lead. Can check preview here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hikmat_Zaid&diff=prev&oldid=1240506350 Drake Thompson (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update Reworked lead, early life and education and early political career sections. Wouldn't mind some help with the rest if anyone is interested (: Drake Thompson (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reworked Rise to power section Drake Thompson (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve balance if needed. FourPi (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I reworked the entire article, all sections were removed and replaced with different text. I believe the article should be reviewed again and its removal should be revoked. Drake Thompson (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drake Thompson: please strike this, your second !vote, as you've already !voted once. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly notable per NPOL, and the notability grounds are reliably supported (whether they were at the time of commencing this discussion, I don't know). Also just to remind that deletion is not cleanup. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 17 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. Daniel (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaji Bhangare

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

WP:CASTE cruft bio created by IP socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. First tried to hijack Gamaliel when that failed started this page through another IP hop. Gotitbro (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Military, India, and Maharashtra. Gotitbro (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I can not verify any sources except for one but that is not on the subject of this page. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the article is not properly written but it meets the WP:GNG and WP:V per the cited sources.2409:4051:38B:9FBC:2307:730F:F39B:ED93 (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)— 2409:4051:38B:9FBC:2307:730F:F39B:ED93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: article is related to the Maratha Army of the Maratha empire that ruled northern India from 1600_1800 and also meets Verifiability.195.170.172.189 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)— 195.170.172.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. One trivial mention in this journal (with the same text as this book). Nothing else. Although weirdly a mention apparently appears in The Wikipedia Revolution (Andrew Lih, 2009) but the contents are unavailable on Google Books so I'm not sure why. C F A 💬 16:03, 12 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fear Factor India

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 10:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khatron Ke Khiladi (TV series) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khatron Ke Khiladi (TV series) Next time do the most bare minimum of WP:BEFORE please, including reading the lede of this article where the suggested target is linked within it. A series with fourteen seasons certainly meets GNG/NTV. Also please update your signature to link to your current, not your former, username. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fear Factor India and Khatron Ke Khiladi (TV series) are different series not the same. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 23:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They both translate to ''Fear Factor'' and use the same format and were produced by the same studio. It's baffling to keep two separate articles for the same show just because of a network difference, and there's nothing to merge outside the lede because this article has a completely unsourced cast list. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 13 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 per G5; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramaprabha1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kodagu University

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

Disputed draftification. The university appears to exist because Google can find details. All the references are primary sources, none of them (currently) is able to be opened for verification. Lacks references which are significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:V. Has potential to be incubated in Draft. Most assuredly not ready for mainspace. As presented fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am only able to find routine coverage with many passing mentions from a WP:BEFORE search. There are some reliable sources that are independent, but they are mostly announcements. These sources will likely fail the WP:SIRS check. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my BEFORE source assessment matches those of Jeraxmoira and Timtrent, but I fall on the idea this won't meet the GNG or NSCHOOL. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The server with the supposed references fails to respond. The references are inaccessible. However they are primary sources 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 16 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!} 08:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aeromar destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is a largely a list of places that Aeromar wasn't flying to in January 2023, as is indicated by the overwhelming majority of them being listed as "terminated". Since all of the destinations that were active in January 2023 are mentioned on the Aeromar page, this page is redundant. Anyone asserting that these "terminated" destinations are of historical interest needs to show historical (i.e., historical journal, history book etc.) interest for that.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is entirely sourced either to the company website or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage or local-news failing WP:AUD. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present nor could I find any. FOARP (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Aviation. FOARP (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Orientls (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In concurrence with the nominator's assessment. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - Just a note that this article, too, is basically original research. Take the statement that the service to Flores, Guatemala is "Terminated". This is cited to an October 2021 article on the www.transponder1200.com blog discussing future plans to start flights to Flores. Presumably, Flores was listed as terminated by Aeromar as of January 2023 because that destination wasn't listed on Aeromar's website. The problem here is that there's no evidence that Aeromar actually ever flew to Flores, the conclusion that they did but then the service was cancelled is simply a synthesis of low-quality primary sources or exactly the kind excluded by WP:NOT. This kind of issue affects most listings on this page, and indeed every airline-destination article. FOARP (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 05:59, 17 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. Daniel (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic airway-digestive inflammatory disease

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

There is one source in this very old stub, and that is to a self help book that coined this term. I found it mentioned just a few times by similarly non medical texts, e.g. [11] which is about fitness and diet. Scholar comes up blank. Medical texts do not recognize this. The page lacks WP:MEDRS because they don't exist. At best this is a syndrome and not a disease, but as it stands there is no subject here. The opening claim appears fringe and has been unsourced for 17 years. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen Made-up syndrome by one set of authors selling their cure. This text in the article definitely takes it into fringe land CAID can also impact organs beyond the respiratory (breathing) and digestive systems. Heart disease, stroke, infertility, painful headaches and chronic fatigue syndrome may be linked to CAID. Search finds discussion of some connections between some respiratory and GI illnesses, but nothing approaching a defined syndrome or the claims in this article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook nonexistent diagnosis conjured up by alt-med quacks. Not one mention in Google Scholar (!) let alone any reputable database; only mentions on the open web are this article, WP mirrors, and the book by the authors cited in the article (the only reference). User who created the page has 2 edits, both to this article. There is a real diagnosis called CAID (chronic atrial-intestinal dysrhythmia): [12] but it is unrelated. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for diseases made up one day. XOR'easter (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this exists. Mgp28 (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another fringe idea trying to get around that we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:50, 17 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 Bharatiya Janata Party, Haryana as a valid AtD. Daniel (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhajpa Ki Baat

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

Fails WP:WEBSITE, Some non-reliable sources in this article. Youknow? (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, India, and Delhi. Youknow? (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator. I searched for independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject but couldn’t find any. The article relies on unreliable sources, and I was also unable to find any Hindi sources. The article fails to meet WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Please ping me if anyone finds significant coverage from reliable sources about the subject. GrabUp - Talk 08:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Poor sources on the page with mostly primary source of subject's own political news website. Lacks indepth coverage and secondary independent reliable sources. Page is also for WP:PROMO and advertising purpose. RangersRus (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bharatiya Janata Party, Haryana per WP:ATD. Bhajpa Ki Baat is the the official magazine of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Haryana. The latter has almost no text making the contents of its official magazine an important win for the target article! I'd appreciate if others can get behind this! Pinging: Youknow?, GrabUp, and RangersRus. gidonb (talk) 02:35, 14 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. Daniel (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Pawan

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, There is no Indepth coverage. Most of the sources are user generated, not reliable sources, (WP:RS). Notion Press, Goodreads.com, Gaana. etc. All these are non-reliable sources. Youknow? (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Haryana. Youknow? (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Most sources on the page are poor, primary and unreliable. I cannot find subject's work that has made a significant impact and achievement (nationally or internationally) and demonstrated by secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and most of the sources are unreliable. Charliehdb (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom C F A 💬 16:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails WP:GNG, there is no significant coverage in enough reliable secondary sources MohReddy (talk) 22:22, 12 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 diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Burundi, London

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

No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Very little content, effectively a directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. No third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG. Checked newspapers.com and Google Books. No significant coverage anywhere. C F A 💬 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London (or make an anchor for Burundi and target that). This is a plausible search term about which we have content so we best serve our readers by taking them to that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 13 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. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomad (eSIM)

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

I believe this article fails WP:NPRODUCT as the subject doesn't appear to have received sustained coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Available sources seem to be either reviews that fail WP:PRODUCTREV, primary, or superficial mentions.

Most of the article is actually about how eSIMs work. A brief mention of this product is already given on LotusFlare, the company which runs Nomad. Ligaturama (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Ligaturama (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find sponsored reviews (e.g. [13][14][15] ) and trivial mentions. May be notable in the future but fails GNG at the moment. C F A 💬 16:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable product/service --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 16:19, 12 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!} 05:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Bangladesh-Myanmar border skirmish

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

This type of skirmish is not uncommon in the region. The event had no lasting historical significance, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Worldbruce (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Worldbruce (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 07:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non notable event. At best, relevant information can be added to Bangladesh–Myanmar border. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:07, 17 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!} 04:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Israel News

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

Has been dumped on the top of the list of Israeli newspapers, yet this is a platform that fails NCORP. I will go ahead and remove it from the list of Israeli newspapers. A connection to the JPost was suggested yet remains totally unclear. gidonb (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Israel. gidonb (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NCORP. No significant coverage in independent sources. C F A 💬 16:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its masthead indicates that it is "covering news and events impacting Israel & the Middle East for the Evangelical world", which is pretty much a disqualifier for a news source for that country, and trying to use alphabetical advantage to be the first to show up on a list isn't a good sign. This is just yet another evangelical blog trying to use hot topics and sorting to SEO their way to the top. Nate • (chatter) 23:38, 15 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waipareira

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

Non-notable electorate that only briefly existed for 3 years. No independent secondary coverage appears to exist. Can be mentioned elsewhere like the Te Atatu electorate. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You are joking, aren't you? How can an electorate not be notable? Electorates are unique (hence, a merger is inappropriate); they form the basis for electorate seats. There is no way that you'd see an electorate deleted and I encourage you to withdraw this nomination. Schwede 66 05:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no subject specific notability for electorates. I did not see any reliable SIGCOV at first although I have found one source now: [16] Traumnovelle (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this electorate is significant within the New Zealand context for having only lasted one election.NealeWellington (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing significant about it lasting only a single election. It was not the first electorate to exist for a single election and no reliable source mentions it being notable/significant for that. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep electorates are generally clearly notable for many different reasons. Not seeing an argument against here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is a lack of independent reliable sources providing significant coverage, therefore no GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The significant sources would have been in 1995 and 1996, and as we all know, that is a period for which there are scant online sources available. PapersPast stops at 1989, and The New Zealand Herald has an online archive going back to about 2000. There's hardly anything in between. That the sources aren't online does not mean that they do not exist. Schwede 66 21:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Auckland Library has sources which have blurbs/briefs catalogued in the National Library website. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per NealeWellington. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a corollary of WP:NPOL, electorates are presumably notable, even one in existence for a single election, although that's not necessarily the case here. Historically, Waipareira was a riding created in 1911 in the former Waitematā County Council. In the 1997 edited text "From Campaign to Coalition: New Zealand's First General Election Under Proportional Representation" ISBN 9780864693143 there's an entire chapter (Marcus Ganley's "Waipareira: A Four-Way Fight") devoted to the campaign for the seat at the 1997 election. WP:NEXIST Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The riding isn't related to the electorate bar the name. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um... other than covering the same geographic area (West Auckland), sure. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still can't quite fathom why a parliamentary electorate would be nominated for deletion. Obviously it is notable and should be retained. Kiwichris (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All parliamentary electorates are notable, even if they have only been used for one term. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electorates are not presumed notable. There is no policy or guideline that states that. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, as mentioned above, it's a corollary of WP:NPOL (we make elected politicans presumably notable, by implication their offices and electorates will be) and, second, there is consistent community consensus that electorates are notable, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lansdowne (electoral district), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saskatoon Stonebridge. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electorates are part of the process of electing members of the New Zealand parliament (both under Mixed Member and the former FPP systems). And as per WP:NPOL, anyone elected to parliament is presumed notable. There is plenty of coverage around the 1996 electoral distribution. Ajf773 (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electorates aren't mentioned on WP:NPOL. Just because politicians are notable doesn't mean their electorates or offices are automatically notable. This is a flawed inherited notability argument. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one here agrees with you. Ajf773 (talk) 01:57, 14 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 Incident management as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incident management (ITSM)

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, and Technology. C F A 💬 03:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article sounds like a WP:DICTIONARY definition Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with Incident management. Tule-hog (talk) 02:31, 9 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!} 03:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Incident management: Can easily be included as a subsection on the latter article, though the sources here are not great. Recon rabbit 14:37, 16 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 request the article's undeletion.

I don't see a consensus here but no one has voted to Keep this article so the default is to Soft Delete discussions like this. The article can be restored through WP:REFUND should sources be found that establish notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Tomassian

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

nonnotable voice actor - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and France. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar: I'm trying to evaluate WP:ENT, but Alexis Tomassian § Filmography is pretty misleading; for instance, Tomassian did not voice Zuko in A:TLA, but rather in its French dub. The best I can find so far is voicing the main characters of Martin Mystery and The Podcats, and the latter's notability is questionable. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He also voiced Samson in Calamity, a Childhood of Martha Jane Cannary; he's listed as the third star, and a review describes Samson as the plot's initial catalyst. That looks like a significant role to me. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a significant coverage of Tomassian. In fact, not a mum about him. Notability not inherited - Altenmann >talk 18:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll paraphrase the part of WP:ENT that applies here: An actor or voice actor may be considered notable if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films or television shows. That's from a subject-specific notability guideline. "Significant coverage" has nothing to do with that – it's only in WP:GNG. I also don't see your point with WP:INHERIT – that section names SNGs as a case where notability can be inherited. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for clarification. Still, I fail to see "initial catalyst" is "significant role": Samson is covered in a single sentence. If a role is significant, surely it deserves more than that. About INHERIT, thanks again, I stand corrected. - Altenmann >talk 22:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The review's pretty sparse on plot in general, and Samson's one sentence is more than any other (non-main) character gets. Calamity, a Childhood of Martha Jane Cannary § Plot goes into more detail, and he's mentioned in 9 sentences there (mostly as "the soldier", but that's unambiguous). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be obnoxious, but one needs an independent source that describes character's role as "significant" or similar, otherwise it is Wikipedian's opinion/original research. In the case of Calamity, I inclined to believe, because imdb say "starring Salomé Boulven Alexandra Lamy Alexis Tomassian", implying these are major roles, but unfortunately imdb is not a valid ref for wikipedia. OK. I'm done being obnoxious here. :-) - Altenmann >talk 23:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that notability needs to be based on reliable sources, but we're never going to get a reliable source to directly support a claim that "this subject is wikinotable". That's probably why WP:NOR's lead says it doesn't apply to deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red herring. Strawman. Muddy waters. Don't give it to me. We need a source which supports our requirement for notability. In this case we need sources which imply that the actor had "significant roles in multiple notable films or television shows". And this must acceptable for the article, not for AfD bickering. - Altenmann >talk 07:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? It's not a red herring. WP:NOR literally states that This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Can you explain why you think we need those particular sources, given that WP:NOR does not apply? jlwoodwa (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You cannot base article content on non-reliable sources. Just the same, you cannot judge subject notability basing on self-published sources. Are you seriously telling me that if actor's mom says that her boy is the greatest actor, then we write a Wikipedia article about him? AfD discussions routinely judge sources, and WP:NOR has nothing to do with this. - Altenmann >talk 16:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling you that. I don't know why you'd think I'm telling you that. As I said before, I agree that notability needs to be based on reliable sources. I'm only objecting to your statement that one needs an independent source that describes character's role as "significant" or similar, otherwise it is Wikipedian's opinion/original research. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not objecting that a certain degree of "original research" is necessary in AfD discussions: of course, judging sources is kinda "original research", but this kind of Wikipedian's opinion about sources is everywhere in Wikipedia, and it is not really original research. I see we are in the same page here, so never mind. - Altenmann >talk 20:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Donaldd23's improvements, Zombillenium now looks notable, and a review describes Steven (Tomassian's character) for three sentences. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, interesting discussion but we need some firm opinions on what should happen with this article and so far, I don't see any other than the nominator's. As for sources, I've seen dozens of actors' bios at AFD and "significant role" is typically judged not by a reliable source that says, exactly, that an actor's role was significant but by whether their character is listed as a main character in the film information. But there have been successful arguments that some supporting roles are also significant so there is an element of subjectivity involved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz summarized the discussion correctly: we need sources that the actor had significant role, i.e., they were either among main characters (no further sources needed) or among supporting roles which were somehow noted by critics (e.g. award for "best supporting role" (but in the latter case it is for notability anyway), or other mentions, eg I saw statements that this or that secondary role unexpectedly rose to prominence in a film due to actor's extraordinary acting). - Altenmann >talk 03:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- <sigh> I have to go against my own nom, since nobody else bothers: Tomassian voiced Kaworu Nagisa (in French dubbing), definitely among main chars. - Altenmann >talk 03:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 12 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. Daniel (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Liberty University

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

Not a notable institution. An unaccredited university, with no independent sources. No longer approved to operate [17]. The only independent coverage is a few message boards saying it is a "scam". Walsh90210 (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable educational institution, few if any sources, not even anything saying how good or bad it is as an institution of higher learning. Oaktree b (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for-profit schools are not automatically notable, and the only source is not independent. For what it’s worth, I taught for years at a vocational college that was also accredited by ACICS, which was legitimate, but in the early 2010s gave away accreditation like Ronnie Johnson gave out narcotics at the White House. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 16 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 University of the East. Daniel (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of the East College of Computer Studies and Systems

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of the East College of Computer Studies and System closed as merge to University of the East and this was subsequently recreated so bringing it back here for broader discussion and merger restoration, if deemed appropriate. I am unable to find independent sourcing for this college. Star Mississippi 02:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Philippines. Star Mississippi 02:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of the East. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of the East per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:47, 14 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 request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masahiko Nakahira

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

No source was found either within the article or outside the article that meet notability. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's some coverage in this, a RS [18], but it's not enough coverage for an article. That's all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Anime and manga, and Japan. CptViraj (talk) 03:47, 12 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 request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Pair of Aces

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

Article has been tagged for sources since September 2022. The only sources on the page are for Goodreads (unreliable per WP:GOODREADS) and a "review" that ultimately directs the user to Amazon. According to the page, the text was never published, and I have not been able to find any sources on the subject. Given that there are two authors, the option to redirect is out. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing useful found. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 12 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 as WP:G5, more at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwinug. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persikad 1999

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but no indication factors have changed since the prior AfD. A redirect to Liga 3 (Indonesia) is likely not helpful to the reader as teams aren't mentioned there. Star Mississippi 00:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Indonesia. Star Mississippi 00:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:33, 16 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 Melbourne School of Theology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Raiter

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 7 months ago and no consensus. I still believe he fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. There is no inherent notability in any of the roles he has had. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Melbourne School of Theology: As was proposed last time, seems fine to me. I don't see much additional coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Pakistan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe the article fails notability and WP:RS guidelines, but I would also support a merge if that was editorial consensus.Go4thProsper (talk) 02:56, 18 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.

[1] ttps://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/canadian-future-party-officially-launches--august-14-2024

[2] ttps://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7294230

[3] ttps://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/not-left-not-right-but-forward-dominic-cardy-officially-launches-new-centrist-federal-political-party-1.7000587

[4] ttps://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/national/from-centre-ice-conservatives-to-canadian-future-a-new-federal-party-takes-shape/article_b1906e0a-ed2c-54d0-b0e3-d734e2037c08.html

[5] ttps://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianFutureParty/

[6] ttps://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/1erpwyz/a_former_progressive_conservative_who_calls/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]