Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 9: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

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!} 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sports Illustrated writers

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, News media, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject meets the WP:NLIST as the grouping has been discussed in several secondary sources, such as [[1]] and [[2]], along with several books about the magazine which discuss the writers. Let'srun (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 18:59, 21 June 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 result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swatting of American politicians (2023–2024)

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

Propose article be deleted or at least moved to draft. At present this article seems to be little more than a list of news articles with no wider encyclopaedic merit (WP:NOTNEWS). There doesn't appear to be any evidence to link any of these events other than a rather arbitrary time period that feels created by editors, which there amounts to Wikipedia assigning correlation where there may be none (WP:OR).

Given the contentious topic nature of the subject matter feel it's best that the article be removed from at least main space until such a time it's improved or demonstrates merit for inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Politics, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as discussed on the article talk page, multiple reliable sources referred to the incidents in relationship with one another and noted that some politicians reacted with the proposed legislation to enact harsher sentences for swatting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the above argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a notable pattern of harnessing elected officials. It doesn't seem to be going away, and has the possibility of getting worse, or spreading to other countries. — Maile (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 108.18.142.185 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Maile, I don't see the issue resolving itself soon anytime either and it is not an isolated case Wiiformii (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. This does not preclude merging or redirecting the article. – Joe (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memadangu

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

Can't find anything but postal directories about this village — not even its coordinates. Unsourced since creation in 2011. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kerala. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOLAND - is a census designated place, has a post office, has government recognition. BrigadierG (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which source says that? Geschichte (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty, but https://www.indiatvnews.com/pincode/kerala/ernakulam/memadangu as an example BrigadierG (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see https://www.indiatvnews.com/pincode/kerala/ernakulam/aluva-town-bus-stand. It doesn't mean we should have an article about the Aluva Town Bus Stand Geschichte (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:GEOLAND BrigadierG (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only want to know which source refers to it as a census designated place. Surely, the census itself would be the logical source, not the unuseful link you posted, and with the census, we would also have its population. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a delete until the failure of WP:V is addressed. The above link doesn't help with anything, and so far the discussions has yielded little else than WP:PERX. Google Maps redirects Memadangu to Mekkadambu, but that is southwest of Muvattupuzha, not southeast. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/29073/download/32254/29647_1981_ERN.pdf

It's a census-designated place BrigadierG (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BrigadierG provided a link to 1981 census data above which contains data of Memadangu on page 150. Population 1,642 back then. However, it's only a subdivision of the village of Arakuzha. While it is a legally recognized populated place per WP:GEOLAND, I wonder if we should have pages of individual village subdivisions. I – perhaps unorthodoxly – suggest a Merge to Arakuzha. Broc (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cited in administrative reports which searched for graphite in the 1960s, listed in directories of rubber estates as a town, but most importantly cited in the Indian census: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs)
Question: Per my earlier comment, is Memadangu really Mekkadambu? Geschichte (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Apparently so. I am amazed that nobody else cared to reply. My search brought back the same. I hope everyone understands that JUST using "WP:GEOLAND" does not make a location inherently notable. A subdivision, that may be barely notable, might be better in a more general article where notability may not be questioned as GNG, at the least, must be satisfied. There are actually reasons why Wikipedia has PROVEIT and HEY. Already "small mountains, rocky hills, rivers, paddy fields, rubber plantations and pineapple plantations" can be removed as lacking in line citations. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: No, Mekkadambu/Mekkadampu and Memadangu are both in Ernakulam but are separate locations with separate pincodes and postal branch offices.[4][5][6][7][8][9] map. Gmaps appears to incorrectly have Mekkadangu as "മേമടങ്ങ്‌" (Memadangu) instead of "മേക്കടമ്പ്" ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  (Oh yeah -- zero issue with consolidation at Arakuzha) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, GEOLAND is one of our weakest notability requirements. If we can verify it's a populated place, we're allowed to have an article on it. A subdivision doesn't count. SportingFlyer T·C 11:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards redirecting to Arakuzha or deletion. The only quasi-reliable source that shows Memadangu is a place for GEOLAND is the census entry. It's a spreadsheet entry with nine numbers that lists Memadangu as part of Arakkuzha. Per GEOLAND, Census tracts, abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. – I've looked through all the links provided here and have not been convinced this isn't some census-generated subdivision of Arakuzha. The links to news sites showing that there is a post office in Memadangu are irrelevant to me. The existence of a post office does not prove that the location it's named after is a populated place, and as Geschichte pointed out, there's also one of those post office entries for a bus stand, which is clearly not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 09:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to BIG Synergy#Fiction shows. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BIG_Synergy#Fiction_shows. RangersRus (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BIG_Synergy#Fiction_shows yes. Note: again, inviting all future noms of programs with coverage for verification but uncertain notability to redirect them boldly without nominating for deletion. It's easily undone and, in that case, if issues are still apparent, Afd remains an option. It will save time to many of us. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, As nominator, I support the redirect as listed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BIG_Synergy#Fiction_shows.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FTG Metro

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources; sources are mostly obituaries. No indication of awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bibliographies. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This happens quite often with murdered musicians, especially rappers. The fact that his murder was covered in media does not make him notable, unless there is additional analysis per the requirements of WP:VICTIM. His music gained no notice during his lifetime, and the only reason we even know he was a rapper is because his obituaries said it, so there is not enough per WP:NMUSICIAN either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the murder is tragic, media coverage alone doesn't establish notability. There's no indication the music gained significant public attention during his lifetime. Waqar💬 18:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC with no chart or notable label activity. Death does not establish notability as slain rappers will make the obligatory headlines. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 22:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TwoTiime, another non-notable rapper who's mentioned in the article, has also been nominated for AfD. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is clear, borderline WP:SNOW. BD2412 T 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeesh Babu

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

This article was created in draft and speedy-deleted per WP:G11 on June 8. It was then recreated (somewhat less promotional) and PRODded. The PROD was removed by an IP, who also added some unsourced material. I (improperly because I had no right to reinstate the PROD) reverted the IP because of the unsourced material. Another administrator properly removed the PROD. The article still exists at Draft:Adeesh Babu, which is where I believe it should be until it's cleaned up and notability has been satisfied. Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing suggests this is a notable artist. They have done everyday things like go to school and have an art show. Typical of the sourcing here is "The New Indian Express" source[11] which does not provide significant coverage. It just simply names them as creating with their friends "an online art exhibition which features 13 works of 13 artists" and was hosted on blogspot. They are far from WP:ARTIST standards like "regarded as an important figure" or "known for originating a significant new concept" or "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Elspea756 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I find are the Times of India link and primary sources, including his own website. None of this is notable and the lack of coverage indicates non-notability. The Times of India is also not a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Liz's original assessment of WP:G11 BrigadierG (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. It's a possible WP:G11, I PROd this article a few days ago. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor has left an abandoned Draft:Adeesh Babu. No reason to have non-notable artist in main space.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Procedural delete per the nom. UtherSRG (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Sallis

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

Borderline promo piece on a businessperson that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. According to WP:RSPS, we should not accept Forbes contributor pieces nor articles on Medium as evidence of notability, as they are essentially self-published and/or have very little editorial oversight. The other sources are also quite suspect and either look like blogs or are written in a very promotional way, which indicates some sort of conflict of interest. My own searches found nothing better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Finance, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:G11. "President of Rapid Credit Boosters. Sallis is a philanthropist, motivational speaker [...]" give me a break. BrigadierG (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per BrigadierG. It's not just a "borderline promo piece" it literally is a promo piece. Even if it wasn't a promo piece he does not seem notable anyway. Procyon117 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Antoine Sallis meets the notability criteria as demonstrated by several reliable sources.  He was featured in Black Enterprise and Rolling Out, which provide significant coverage of his career and achievements:
 - Black Enterprise: [Antoine Sallis, the Credit Genius, teaches others how to maximize the full power of credit](https://www.blackenterprise.com/antoine-sallis-the-credit-genius-teaches-others-how-to-maximize-the-full-power-of-credit/)
 - Rolling Out: [Antoine Sallis, the Credit Genius, talks about his unique leadership style](https://rollingout.com/2022/04/30/antoine-sallis-the-credit-genius-talks-about-his-unique-leadership-style/ )

Additionally, he is a published author with books that have ISBNs and are listed in reliable databases such as Google Books:

 - Google Books: [The Great American Credit Secret](https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Great_American_Credit_Secret.html?id=pSH_zwEACAAJ)

These sources clearly establish his notability and warrant the retention of this article.

Please sign your comments so we know who this is. Other than that, the first two links are just interviews that don't show any notability. And having a book in Google Books doesn't guarantee notability. Procyon117 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've removed some known SEO sinks. The rest is vanity press publications. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing concrete to establish notablility, fails GNG and looks more of promotional as well. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOOL (FM)

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

No evidence of notability. The best source is an obituary of the founder. Other sources show that it exists but little else. A recent conversion to a redirect was immediatly reversed. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Vermont. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to List of radio stations in Vermont~~: Newer radio stations are far less likely to meet the GNG owing to the decreased likelihood of attaining significant coverage, regardless of how much local (rather than national) programming may exist. ~~By 2024 standards, we really don't need much more than an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion.~~ (The contested redirect was to the list of community radio stations in the United States, but that is limited to stations with Wikipedia articles — to me, that does not make a valid ATD.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, at the risk of bringing up the proverbial "other stuff that exists", I did want to point out that if WOOL is not determined to be sufficiently notable, its LPFM predecessor WOOL-LP would probably also be a GNG fail. (They really should not be separate articles in any event, and that they are is if anything a remnant of the very same too-loose pre-2021 RfC inclusion standards ~~that led to WOOL seemingly being deemed an appropriate article subject at all.~~) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was already considering merging those two articles but had not been able to handle it due to issues on my end. I've dealt with the reverse (full-service FM license switched to LPFM, in both cases an upgrade from Class D) and written them as one article (KSWC-LP, KSWH-LP). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owing to the recent rewrite, merger, and expansion, I'm pivoting to keep. If nothing else, all this is a reminder that "far less likely" does not mean "zero chance"! WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am working on collecting resources for the entire WOOL run (LP + FM). There is a steady trickle of articles on this station in newspapers in Brattleboro and Rutland—better coverage than most LPFMs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WOOL-LP has been redirected here, and I have completed an expansion of the prose. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be sourcing out there. Thriley (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sammi Brie added sources to the article, so I guess that's good.

Also, WOOL-LP has been merged/directed to the WOOL-FM (Full Power) article. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 04:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 South African provincial elections

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

No reason for this article to exist. User was BOLD in creating it, but there are individual articles for the provincial elections, and the results summary (which is all it is) belongs on the main page, where it was cut from. It also does not attribute the source article. Greenman (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This should really just be on the main article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the primary article is already very large, and it should remain mostly focused on the national parliamentary election. I propose keeping this article, and removing all the repeating content from the primary one.

If length is an issue, there are better things to remove from the main article than the results summary. That page cannot display endless opinion polls, various trivia in the leadup etc., but not display the results :) Greenman (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MapperGuy87 (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The original article is very long and a page for subdivisional elections is common for systems like this. This page could be more in-depth but it makes far more sense to put a shorter summary (probably in a table form) on the "general election" page and keep the in-depth stuff here. Watercheetah99 (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've assessed the situation correctly. There are already in-depth (or what can become in-depth) pages for each individual provincial election. This intermediate page serves no purpose. The summary that it currently contains should be on the main page, and in-depth coverage should be on the individual pages. Greenman (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm aware, this is just a common element of approaches to similar systems. There are intermediate pages to link elections on the same subdivision level; for example: despite the fact that pretty much every locality's elections had a specific page, the 2024 United Kingdom local elections article exists and helps link the elections. An even better example are pages like 2022 United States gubernatorial elections or 2023 Nigerian gubernatorial elections, these intermediate pages are common and serve a purpose. If we wanted to completely overhaul the 2024 South African election pages, these examples could be models: there'd be an overview page ("2024 South African elections" based on 2024 United States elections) with a tables and short summaries on national, provincial, and local (by-) elections; there'd be separate 2024 South African general election and 2024 South African provincial elections pages; and there'd be pages for each provincial election. This would shorten each article and avoid the current overlap of each page. Those are just my suggestions and probably too much work, but I'm still a Keep for this discussion. Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems reasonable to have a summary article that keeps all the provincial election results in one place and links out to more detailed articles. As Watercheetah says, this is fairly standard practice (e.g. 2023 Italian regional elections). Number 5 7 21:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Number 57; useful as a summary page. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAP implementation

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

No real sources, reads like a manual, mostly copied from manuals? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like a kind of essay or perhaps class notes or a course outline. Even with adequate sourcing, this fails WP:GNG for a standalone page under WP:NOTHOW and WP:NOTESSAY. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article lacks sourcing, and cleaning it up would amount to blanking the page. Deletion is appropriate per WP: STARTOVER. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Imran Garda without prejudice against selectively merging sourced content that fits with the target page. Owen× ☎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The InnerView

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

Not yet notable per WP:GNG, or WP:NTV (which is an essay, not a policy). I've hunted around for a few days now for some independent, secondary sources about this show, assuming that a show on the state public broadcasting network TRT World with such wide geographical coverage would have some decent reviews etc in reliable sources, but all I can find is more or less what's here: passing mentions of the show, in articles about the subjects of the interview. 73 of the 84 sources cited so far are from the show's own YouTube channel. Its chief claim to notability is the many notable people who have been interviewed on the show, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Article creator is a single-purpose account, and no response yet at their user talk page about potential conflict of interest. Wikishovel (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and Turkey. Wikishovel (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imran Garda -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Imran Garda. article is not notable (per WP:GNG), has no WP:SIGCOV, and cites some rather strange/primary sources. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the article would be better off as a section in Imran Garda. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page fulfils all the necessary criteria. Clips from the show have been published by such reputable organisations as CNN, Middle East Eye,[Middle East Monitor and Earth Speed, among others. The page is comprised solely of factual information. The show reaches approximately 260 million homes worldwide through broadcast and thousands more through social media. In my opinion, the Wikipedia page for The InnerView is justified in its existence.The program has hosted a number of notable individuals whose perspectives have significantly influenced the way in which we perceive the world. (Elina Ergunes) 15:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elina Ergunes (talk • contribs) — Elina Ergunes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The result was no consensus‎. There was no support for an outright deletion. Therefore, a merger would be an alternative to Keep, not an ATD. There was rough consensus that not all three articles - Fantastic Beasts, List of Fantastic Beasts cast members and this one - should exist independently, but no consensus as to which should be merged into what. Such controversial mergers are best handled editorially on the repsective articles' Talk pages. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters

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

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of "List of X characters" is X, and we're agreed that Fantastic Beasts itself is notable, so questioning the notability of "X characters" as a topic is a red herring. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.

Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.

And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. I think there is enough to write about these characters, both as a group and individually, based on pop culture sources like [12], [13], and scholarly sources like here and many others. While it is indeed a problem that there are almost no references, this can easily be addressed through normal editing by using such secondary non-independent book-length sources like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Character Guide or Harry Potter: Characters of the Wizarding World. The latter also sets a precedent for a possible merge with List of Harry Potter characters, if a collective treatment is somehow seen as beneficial. (Which would pose the naming problem, where surly there can be a compromise if needed.) No strong opinion on that particular question. List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to me seems to have less content, so this could be merged here, discussion on the name notwithstanding. Or that list could be merged to Fantastic Beasts, as suggested this discussion, leaving the our list here with solvable problems to solve. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [14], [15], and with a fun bit of analysis, [16]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but do note the entirety of List of Fantastic Beasts cast members is merged to Fantastic Beasts now, so unless we do combine, should redirect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. The two subjects can be elegantly merged, and together there is less question about notability. Malinaccier (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. See no reason why not to. Only the same characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Malinaccier and Hyperbolick: If the result was a merge, would you prefer to merge this List of Fantastic Beasts characters to List of Fantastic Beasts cast members or the other way round? I kind of feel that we have more content here, and "characters" feels more natural to me than "cast members", also seeing that there is some spinoff into (and from) other media. So if there was to be a merge and it was up to me, I'd merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members here. (And there is of course the other option as suggested by Adam Cuerden to merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to Fantastic Beasts. In case you would support that, how would that influence your merge opinion?) Daranios (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. "characters" does feel better. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the merge would result in "characters" being the final page. Malinaccier (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ATD. The article is poorly sourced, but a clean-up and merge offers a way to arrive at a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument for deletion only lists surmountable problems. In my opinion, it is the cast member list that should be merged here, not vice-versa. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can't close this discussion as a reverse merge as the other article has not been tagged as being part of this AFD discussion and most participants have just commented about the article nominated, not a separate article. That would have to be a separate, new Merge discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on merge target Cast and characters are different topics. Character lists for fictional franchise exist across many more topics than do those for lists of cast members, since many representations (books, manga, etc.) have no cast members and others (animation) have only voice cast. Merging this into the cast members article doesn't make sense. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dunn (defender)

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

I'm a bit unsure about this one, as he seemed to have a rather robust career, but it was entirely at the non-league, semi-pro level. There doesn't seem to be much of any WP:SIGCOV outside of this local newspaper coverage. I'd like to see what consensus is here, as it feels like a "delete" for me, but I'm curious what others think. Anwegmann (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Football figures whose playing and manager career is mostly confined to small clubs do not have exact material to support WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Scarborough F.C. players where he should be added. Giant Snowman 14:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know, I don't think redirecting to the players article helps, seems to be an important figure for the club in the 1970s and 1980s, first as a player then as a manager. I'd prefer to keep, however if not, suggest a redirect to the club page Scarborough F.C. His name is mentioned four times on the page, twice as player of the year and twice as manager. As the content on the article is sourced, it maybe a good idea to merge some of the content. Deletion doesn't help anyone. Govvy (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a keep is a bit much for this player, but I'd be totally amenable to a merge or redirect, for sure. Anwegmann (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like delete, but out of respect to the previous relister who sought a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, this should have one final relisting to allow for some additional discussion, any at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been pretty prominent; though searching isn't helped by the fact that the same team had another prominent Harry Dunn at the same time... There's an interview here, and while an interview, it does note that "Harry became a legendary player for Scarborough Football Club. ... Harry Dunn, in what was a 22 year period from 1965 to 1986 you played over 900 games for Scarborough FC, you scored many goals and created many more. You had well over twice the number of appearances of any player in the Club’s history and well over three times the number of appearances by any local player. You have been described as: -the ever present Harry Dunn -competent, reliable and dependable -a calm presence on the field -a gentleman on and off the field – everything that was needed for a team captain to lead Scarborough Football Club to the success it enjoyed and particularly to those Wembley victories." Also some briefish pieces on him: [17] [18] [19] [20]. Kind of expected more... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to assess newly found sources. Otherwise a Redirect to a players' list might be appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The three sources in the article and the interview linked by BeanieFan are enough, in my opinion, to meet the GNG. Add to this an excellent claim to notability, far beyond what I'd expect for a run-of-the-mill football player stub that gets taken to AfD. I don't have access to British Newspaper Archive, but those links at least show there's some "offline" coverage, as would be expected. Toadspike [Talk] 09:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. There is consensus to keep the content. No prejudice against merging, if someone want to pursue that avenue and do the work. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India-Latin America relations

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

Articles on diplomatic relations are supposed to be country specific as long as they concern modern period. This article's title is too broad, inaccurate and whatever is added here can be already found on other articles.Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share that understanding of what counts as a legitimate article at all; there are many articles concerning country-to-region relations, such as Africa–India relations, Sino-Latin America relations, etc. Also, I would like to ask which other articles most of the information in this article can be found at. GreekApple123 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Africa–India relations is based on historical relations while Sino-Latin America relations shall also require deletion.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, Economics, India, and Latin America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge the article is well formatted and cited with many references which covers this topic in depth. It does spun around the topic, passes general notability. However if merging is an option then I'd not oppose it merging in Foreign relations of India. Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is well written and has many reliable sources with significant coverage on the India-Latin economic and trade ties and history. Passes WP:GNG. I am also not opposed to Merge to Foreign relations of India. RangersRus (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Duplicative of other articles. No point. Yilloslime (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge into other Indian articles about relations with Latin America

48JCL (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and covers India's relations with Latin America. With India's growing economy, this a topic which has been getting covered these past years. Dash9Z (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief look at the references in the article was enough to convince me that India–Latin America relations are a notable topic covered significantly by reliable sources. Those are reputable, scholarly sources, like The Diplomat and several journal articles, discussing this subject at length. Toadspike [Talk] 23:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of India, where it makes more sense for now. Content could always be split if it becomes more comprehensive. Dan the Animator 00:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per points made by other users advocating for keep. Will be open to work on it more post afd closure
Keep Article should be kept and rather expanded. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 02:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was ‎ delete. The deciding issue here is the lack of in-depth and independent sourcing. For commercial companies, the standards here are quite stringent. If press releases and the like are accepted as sufficient sourcing, ut is hard to avoid Wikipedia becoming an indirect marketing tool. The article contains several sources, not all of them about the company. Hkkingg listed a number of sources that cover the company in some depth, but the analysis by HighKing on the source's independence and reliability is convincing here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tushy (company)

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

So as I mentioned on my AfD for their CEO, here I am. There were... quite the volume of WP:PRODUCTREV to get through, but nothing with significant coverage of the company, and barely anything on any specific product. Though this was not the primary focus, I do not believe any individual product of theirs is notable either, even ignoring questions of ORGIND or RS. The coverage of their events would seem to be excluded on WP:SPIP. I don't see any plausible way to meet WP:NCORP here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Sources 1 and 34 in the article are RS per Cite Highlighter and provide some coverage about the company. The rest help at least meet BASIC, some more extensive than others, but we should have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC does not apply to companies, only people. But still they may qualify. I am gonna have a deeper look. Hkkingg (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It meets GNG then, we have enough to establish basic notability about this company. Oaktree b (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on present citations including dfdnews, People, Self.com, Digital Trends, Bidet Genius, and tech Crunch.Hkkingg (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was talking to a sock
Kinda obvious that this should be kept. Freedun (yippity yap) 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm not seeing the "obvious", sorry Freedun, in fact, if the 5 best sources are a data feed with no sign of editorial processes, People, which is routine coverage of self-promotional activity, a product review that wouldn't count as sigificant coverage for the product, much less the company even if we considered it ORGIND, an ad, a random blog, and WP:TECHCRUNCH, that would be a strong argument for deletion. Honestly, re Hkkingg: You've been here a year, you really ought to know better by now? And Oaktree b, really? I've already gone over People, but are you seriously going to say that the article from The Cut meets even a single one of the other criteria? We do remeber those exist right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ok i see sorry. I'm not too familiar with what counts as a really great source (in contrast to my past work at fandom). i think you need 3 good ones so here: [21] [22] [23] these aren't ads or a random blog. Freedun (yippity yap) 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] It's not just about reliability. You need sources that address the subject directly and in-detail, and to not be trivial coverage à la the (non-exhaustive) list at WP:ORGTRIV, and said coverage needs to be secondary analysis. I don't see "directly and in-detail" from your three there, and it's not possible to write an article from a bunch of passing mentions, no matter how long that list of mentions is. Not without improper synthesis. An example in the article currently: the entire § Coronavirus section is pretty inappropriate. There is no way for quantity to make up for that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] they are in-detail and not trivial, and those 3 are just scratching the service. i don't see how those are "passing mentions" either, there is more than enough for a wikipedia article, however the article about the CEO is insufficient so I agree with you there. Freedun (yippity yap) 06:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] If you believe the Vox article addresses Tushy directly and in-detail, can you please identify some of the sentences that actually discuss the company? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] "Tushy" is mentioned 14 times in the article, i don't want to copy and paste it all in here. but here's a good sentence "The main selling point of the Tushy is that it allows you to use less toilet paper; the company essentially says that the Tushy minimizes the environmental impact of using toilet paper since it only requires, on average, one pint of water to clean your bum." Freedun (yippity yap) 20:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] The parts of an article where a reporter repeats what the company says are not WP:ORGIND (or secondary either for that matter). We are trying to meet all four criteria here right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was talking to a sock

Kinda obvious that this should be kept. Freedun (yippity yap) 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the "obvious", sorry Freedun, in fact, if the 5 best sources are a data feed with no sign of editorial processes, People, which is routine coverage of self-promotional activity, a product review that wouldn't count as sigificant coverage for the product, much less the company even if we considered it ORGIND, an ad, a random blog, and WP:TECHCRUNCH, that would be a strong argument for deletion. Honestly, re Hkkingg: You've been here a year, you really ought to know better by now? And Oaktree b, really? I've already gone over People, but are you seriously going to say that the article from The Cut meets even a single one of the other criteria? We do remeber those exist right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i see sorry. I'm not too familiar with what counts as a really great source (in contrast to my past work at fandom). i think you need 3 good ones so here: [21] [22] [23] these aren't ads or a random blog. Freedun (yippity yap) 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about reliability. You need sources that address the subject directly and in-detail, and to not be trivial coverage à la the (non-exhaustive) list at WP:ORGTRIV, and said coverage needs to be secondary analysis. I don't see "directly and in-detail" from your three there, and it's not possible to write an article from a bunch of passing mentions, no matter how long that list of mentions is. Not without improper synthesis. An example in the article currently: the entire § Coronavirus section is pretty inappropriate. There is no way for quantity to make up for that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they are in-detail and not trivial, and those 3 are just scratching the service. i don't see how those are "passing mentions" either, there is more than enough for a wikipedia article, however the article about the CEO is insufficient so I agree with you there. Freedun (yippity yap) 06:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the Vox article addresses Tushy directly and in-detail, can you please identify some of the sentences that actually discuss the company? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tushy" is mentioned 14 times in the article, i don't want to copy and paste it all in here. but here's a good sentence "The main selling point of the Tushy is that it allows you to use less toilet paper; the company essentially says that the Tushy minimizes the environmental impact of using toilet paper since it only requires, on average, one pint of water to clean your bum." Freedun (yippity yap) 20:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parts of an article where a reporter repeats what the company says are not WP:ORGIND (or secondary either for that matter). We are trying to meet all four criteria here right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of those sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. This is written by a bot that scrapes "billions of anonymised purchased to answer real-time questions on consumer behaviour", no deffo not a reliable source/article. It also only mentions the company once, in-passing, and has zero in-depth information about the company - fails WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. This in People is based entirely on a company announcement and their own published words, this is not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. This is a review of a bidet, zero "Independent Content" about the *company*, fails CORPDEPTH. This in Digital Trends is based entirely on an announcement - it is a regurgitated ad - and has no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. This from Bidet Genius is first of all written by a company that sells Bidets, so not exactly a reliable source and also fails ORGIND as they're not independent. Happens to also not include in-depth information about the company, also failing CORPDEPTH. Finally this from TechCrunch continues the long tradition of this publication acting as an out-sourced marketing department for companies, article fails ORGIND because it is simply a puff profile regurgitating company messaging. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the available sources really meet NCORP criteria, as we cannot find independent, in-depth, non-trivial coverage. --176.210.111.198 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — 176.210.111.198 (talk) has only contributed to this XFD page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) not sure if you're someone who forgot to sign in or...[reply]
Comment they also want to purchase naming rights to a sports stadium in Buffalo [24] and [25]. These are sources that are about the company, not strictly about routine business funding and other normal company goings-on. Oaktree b (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not routine coverage, and WP:SPIP besides? What "critical analysis of the event" is there? A few puns? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in addition, there are a ton of "profiles". see the nytimes Freedun (yippity yap) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, there is enough for an article about the founder. i think I'm going to start that some time but business people are kinda boring Freedun (yippity yap) 20:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Now blocked as a UPE sock by Ponyo. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to an article on Miki Agrawal, a quick glance indicates BASIC seems plausible, but for a company article the sources we need to write an article about a company need to be about the company. That means there needs to be independent content, published in independent RS, that is detailed and secondary enough to actually write an article from those sources. A profile on the founder doesn't cut it, even if the company is mentioned. (No matter how many times those mentions happen. Quantity is not a substitute.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the sources in the article provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, mainly regurgitated company announcements and other PR-related content. If anyone thinks there are references that meet NCORP, post a link and indicate which paragraph/page/whatever contains the Independent in-depth Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cite Highlighter is not enough for corporations and organizations; we have to look at the articles and examine whether there is significant coverage from independent. I've read through sources 1 and 34, which Oaktree b mentioned above, and it's a bit of a stretch. The first one principally seems about the CEO's marketing stunt, but that isn't really coverage of the company. And the second is a report that a bidet company has made a bid for the Bills stadium, which is a form of a routine business announcement. I've also read the other sources mentioned by Hkkingg, and I find the analysis by HighKing to be convincing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmslie typology

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the typology in reliable sources. I found several mentions, but they were brief. toweli (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The typology is potentially important and is often referred to but full publication and critical discussion are hard to find. In fact, this article is one of the fullest detailed explanations easily available, yet is lacking in citations back to RS original publication or critical coverage. Would suggest we need an article on this typology but serious revision is in order to tackle the source issues. Monstrelet (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A necessary counterpart to the Oakshott system for double-edged blades. I agree that better sourcing is necessary, but I see no need to trim back to only the sourced parts. Most low-rated articles lack full sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some digging and it seems the entire system can be traced to this website and its owner, James G. Elmslie [26]. The site is no longer live but has been thoroughly archived at IA. One would expect this system to be listed under "Research" [27], but it isn't. As far as I can tell, it was made popular by this YouTube video, whose creator also uploaded diagrams to DeviantArt [28]. The YouTube video makes claims of increasing acceptance by the academic/museum community, so I searched Google Scholar and found several results [29]. Examples include [30][31][32][33] (note that the links 6 and 7 are parts 2 and 3 of one work). These cite the typology itself to two different versions of a book titled "The Sword: Form and thought", one from 2015 with first editor Grotkamp-Schepers and one from 2019 with first editor Deutscher. Links: [34][35]. I am working on verifying this book citation, but based on what I've found so far, this typology is indeed published in academic literature and is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 10:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now checked the 2019 version of the book "The Sword: Form and Thought". Elmslie's work is indeed referenced on pages 169, 173, and 175, cited to "pers. comm.", which a quick search tells me means "Personal Communications" (with the author of the papers in question). I would argue that this shows Elmslie is a subject-matter expert as well, and sources he publishes himself (SPS) can be considered scholarly and reliable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's no significant coverage, just mentions, and yet you're advocating for a keep? The responses so far have been strange, if it were really that significant there wouldn't be any issues finding a lot of discussion of the typology. toweli (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning brief Merge to Classification of swords#Modern systems (section currently non-existent, presumably more than just Elmslie and Oakeshott should be listed): I have added the MA project in as a delsort since there's likely to be an relevant overlap of interest/expertise with HEMA practitioners. It exists, and it's useful to have it bluelinked from articles where it's mentioned (currently Falchion and Messer (sword), if it should so remain). It also has no significant independent coverage, and extremely limited uptake. In cases like this, the details available externally (archived) are there for those who want to dig into them. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Andrews (actor)

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

Working actor, reasonable career, but I couldn't find sources available to confirm he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Lots of mentions on less reliable sites/blogs. Weak keep in 2006 when our standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One quite notable role and some mildly notable ones have him meet WP:NACTOR, which is the applicable guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) PS- Added various sources and think the subject also meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources addressing the subject in depth and directly....:D[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, roles add up to enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: it's not about whether the roles are significant or not, it is about whether the role is significant or not. and so far... the only significant role i can find is his role as tommy doyle from halloween. other roles/movies listed in the article do not really make him significant, failing WP:NACTOR brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 08:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEEE-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The station was Knoxville's UPN affiliate in the early 2000s and got some significant coverage in that era. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources added by Sammi give the subject WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 06:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Trueblood

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCIENTIST. His singular discovery is not a notable event, just noteworthy (in the list where it appears). There's just not enough in unrelated third-party reliable sources about him to make an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Astronomy, Engineering, Switzerland, Arizona, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Sources have been provided. The nomination needed explanation and specificity. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

360 Communities

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Minnesota. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NORG MaskedSinger (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article certainly needs more references to secondary sources, a quick google search shows notable coverage: CBS News Patch.com Pioneer Press Star Tribune - Manyyassin (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on sources posted by Manyyassin. They're on the edge of being WP:ROTM coverage of funding announcements, but I think there's enough coverage of the downstream importance of the organization to hit GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep as meeting WP:BASIC. This is not an easy pass -- her books have a relatively low citation count but she has had an impact. Old London Churches seems to have been regarded as a significant work and has been cited quite a bit in the context of for conservation efforts received a number of reviews which are not available online. She got obituaries in the Independent and Telegraph which I think counts for a lot. Here are the sources I think taken together are sufficient:

this book review[36]
this obit in the Independent[37]
this obituary in the Telegraph [38]
minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography [39]
this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper[40]
this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives[41]

One note: immediately prior to bringing this AfD the nominator removed more than 4K of text from the article including removing her extensive biography. I'm not sure how that is justified - surely if the books exist they are sources, although whether they count for notability may be another matter. I wholly agree with @DaffodilOcean's decision to reinstate them, and to identify additional cites. Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [42][43][44] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ([45][46]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This as well, gives a few paragraphs to his career to that point [47] and a book review here [48] Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please scroll to the bottom of the article and the Authority control databases. There are international results there, meaning his works are published in those countries. The Library of Congress returns 20 resources on his works. . — Maile (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly pass WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. There are many ref. i added. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (12 May 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to once again initiate the deletion of the article, based on the same rationale presented during the initial deletion discussion. - "Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND." TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion (again)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wouldn't be surprising if this page ends in soft deletion again, and someone would request a WP:REFUND. It's fine if no one joins in a deletion discussion, but it's very surprising that the creator who asked for the refund hasn't made any updates to this refunded page and hasn't participated in this discussion or previous ones. As a nominator, I am making a request to continue this deletion discussion for another round for one last time. If the page meets WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SIRS and WP:HEY, then I'll withdraw the nomination. TCBT1CSI (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Here's your quorum. Doesn't meet NCORP, especially the bits about "reliable sources" and "No inherited notability" – just because they were bought and sold by StanChart once doesn't make them notable, and the sources seem like glorified press/data releases. Toadspike [Talk] 00:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. an AFD discussion can't close as Soft Deletion twice. And since there has already been an AFD Soft Deletion is not an option at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess investment firms are just boring as hell and no one wants to vote on them. Can't say I blame them. I'm not seeing anything other than transactional and routine announcements about performance and press releases confirming existence. BrigadierG (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Mexico

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

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Parma. NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Royalty and nobility. NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ping some participants from previous discussions on the same type of topic? NLeeuw (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as royalist listcruft. Mccapra (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thai representatives at international male beauty pageants

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

This page seems to be almost exclusively cited to a random Facebook fanpage "ThailandBeautyQueen" and is probably the WP:OR of the account who inserted the links in a series of November 2023 edits, subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Benebimo. There is no way to improve this without starting over with real sources, it should be WP:TNT. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main issue is whether this is a notable grouping that has been covered by independent reliable sources. Notwithstanding that, the entire page is just a table of plain information, which should be trivially verifiable. I don't see why this would fall into WP:TNT territory. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking into this article (which has been a magnet for sockpuppet and blocked accounts), it was originally at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Thailand before it was renamed so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Hopefully, another relisting will bring out editors who have opinions about the value (or lack of it) for articles on national representatives at beauty pageants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the same rationale as held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants. No evidence this set of contestants has been discussed as a whole in RIS, and the article is little more than a directory. Mccapra (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mccapra. No evidence that these subjects are discussed in RS as a group per WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clap note

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

I couldn't establish for sure that this is notable. It has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for many years, and there don't seem to be the amount of sources available to show notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources, seems to be made up. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references to this term that I can find online other than this article, no matches in Google Books or archive.org. Assuming it existed in the first place, it doesn't seem to have entered public usage. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central 23

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

Does not meet GNG or NORG. Sources are all interviews, lists of products, or do not mention Central 23. No RS found during BEFORE search. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Some of the sources in the article don't even mention the company and others barely mention it. — Iadmc ♫^talk 05:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another one where on its face it appears to be notable. However, applying WP:SIRS shows that WP:ORGCRIT is not met. Examples include this and this which are in-depth, but the information is supplied by the founders so there is no real independence of the topic. The main reference that is a claim for notability is the same as the others. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to University of Alabama at Birmingham. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collat School of Business

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources on the articles are either primary, databases, or closely match the wording of a primary source. PROD was removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not opposed to sourcing improvements that would establish notability. This AfD merely describes the state of the article when it was dePRODed. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the University. Barring unique circumstances, the general consensus has always been that law schools and medical schools get articles and other sub-schools get a redirect or nothing at all. See SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is nothing here and nothing rising to the level of GNG that I could find to indicate this school is an exception to the general consensus. If this article was about a business rather than a business school, it would be an A7 CSD. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the main UABpage. Sources used are primarily primary, and in digging, I was unable to pull any that meet WP: N. Obviously, just because I wasn't able to find those those kinds of sources isn't definitive, however, I understand the preferred treatment, if warranted, is to build out a supporting UAB academics page. The Academics section of the main UAB page would be the where the editor would want to start placing this information MertenMerten (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already added secondary sources.

Those sources are databases or closely match the wording of a primary source, none of which can be used to establish notability.

Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.

This is not a valid reason for why an article should be kept under WP: N.

It has met WP: N criteria.
You are free to baselessly claim, as the article's creator, that article meets notability guidelines. In its current state, it does not. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not baseless claims you haven't checked the secondary sources I added!.

Shortcut

WP:SIGCOV

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to annoy and delete a school/colleges page, you better check UCLA's collleges and school, most of there references are directly linked to the institution, not a single secondary sources but you wanted to delete this page with sufficient secondary sources I added, and yet you are ignoring it. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your time is better served finding better sources instead of calling a volunteer annoying, branding them as ignorant, or demanding they read a page which has nothing to do with the AfD. This AfD is about sourcing, so of the sources currently in the article diff:

The Belanger article is WP: ROUTINE coverage of the renaming of the school.

The Watson article isn't reliable. Who is this guy, and how do we know he didn't make up everything in the article?

The Lewis article was written by a high schooler and doesn't provide much information beyond that UAB's business program was ranked by the USNWR. I'd argue that this coverage is routine, and even if it isn't, there isn't much to make an article with.

There's two sources that are databases and can't be used to establish notability.

Anyway, nothing in this AfD stops anyone from putting information about the business school on the main UAB page, so I'm kind of surprised that there's such an aggressive push to keep the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's why it's called a secondary source because it only addresses the topic not the main topic and my sources are reliable and somehow you degraded a high school writer and still a reliable source. Your intentions are not really into the topic, you are trying to degrade my sources when in fact it is a criteria for nobility. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you still had doubts, I'll add as many secondary sources everyday until you get out of here. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and btw those are published articles that you are trying to belittle, and it means it has met the criteria for notability even if the writer is a high school, a farmer, or a homeless man. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, I'm okay with a redirect to the main University of Alabama at Birmingham article as an AtD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need for redirect, I already added secondary sources. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a rough consensus to Redirect this article but in light of the newly added sources, I'd appreciate some editors reviewing them before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sources as of this diff that should swing the discussion. Most of the secondary sources are (still) database entires, and those that aren't lack reliability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bass 305

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Explain the nomination, SL93. See WP:JNN under arguments to avoid and also WP:BEFORE. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did do WP:BEFORE. I already explained the nomination. Just read WP:BAND. I refuse to regurgitate the guideline. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of A.D. Isidro Metapan players

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

WP:LISTN is not met here due to a lack of coverage of the subjects as a group. As it stands, this is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Football, Lists, and El Salvador. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It desperately needs an update, but this is another misuse of the term "indiscriminate" in a list deletion discussion - there is crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Likewise falls under WP:NLIST, by my reading. It's not the individuals who are notable. It's the "group or set" at is notable as such. Anwegmann (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet this list only includes a self-selected number of players, many of whom have no article themselves, and has no sources discussing these players as a group. In my opinion, it is much more appropriate to have a category for the notable players who played here. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fixable through editing, and nowhere in NLIST does it require sources to discuss the list as a group, since there are several valid reasons for creating lists. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a category for the players from this club is enough. Svartner (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. User:SportingFlyer, I see your remarks as a Keep vote, no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I specifically didn't !vote keep because the article's not in good shape, but I'm not a delete. The deletion rationale is flawed - LISTN does not require a source listing the subjects as a group, and it's not indiscriminate. SportingFlyer T·C 08:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable group of individuals covered by a group in reliable sources. The article needs improved, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Frank Anchor 19:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WVTN-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:31, 7 June 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, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unnotable. Danubeball (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asarva–Udaipur City Intercity

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG in any way, [49] which the article cites is just a list of train times. Sohom (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination focuses on references rather than on sources, in defiance of the golden NEXIST rule. 22:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Gidonb, I did search for sources, the only ones I found was [50] which is doesn't actually mention the Intercity train at all, which is why it isn't mentioned in my nom statement. Sohom (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional research. Could we perhaps change to the railroad rather than a service on it? gidonb (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I found no sourcing on this unnamed train routing (the "name" is literally [TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Intercity). As an aside, I don't get how in general Wikipedia decided to have articles on nearly all train routings in India, it's like trying to make an article on every generic intercity rail service in Europe (ex. trying to make an article based off this new UK service), which we don't do. Jumpytoo Talk 03:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Riva

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Marked for COI and primary sourcing issues over 10 years ago, this article's sourcing still consists of 1) coverage about other topics that merely mention the subject, and 2) primary sources. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Management, Switzerland, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gauntlett Eldemire III

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

This person is far from notable. There are no articles about him from any source other than his own school's website. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some RS coverage exists (News-Herald, Inquirer), but not enough to justify an article under GNG imho. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not remotely notable. Wizardman 22:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV is available for this subject to meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Mercer University#Student life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMUB-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Merge with Mercer University#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but I wouldn’t be opposed to a merger. These sources seem to be directly about WMUB-LD, and not just “Look guys! [Network] signed deals with a list of stations that include WMUB!” more “Hey look, WMUB-LD and [Network] have signed a deal.” Though its lack is enough for me to say it’s weak at best. Danubeball (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]