Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 16: 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 no consensus‎. Given mass nominations of a dozen of these articles separately, there has been little to no engagement with these deletion discussions. Thus, I am not convinced that relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Malinaccier (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Club Corinthians Paulista (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover an announcment of the first race, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sevilla FC (Superleague Formula team)

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

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only sources only cover a driver's signing and a race report, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Guoan (Superleague Formula team)

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

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only sources only cover race reports, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borussia Dortmund (Superleague Formula team)

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

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only sources only cover race reports, less about the team. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default.

The result was keep‎. Except for the nominator, there's nobody asserting deletion. Lots of move and redirect suggestions, but the only actual delete assertion was struckthrough. After three relists, consensus seems to agree that keeping in mainspace is the better option. If anybody is interested in renaming, please request the move in the appropriate forum since there appears to be some disagreement about page title. BusterD (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic

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

Basically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Gaza humanitarian crisis.

More importantly, off all the given sources, only a single one (The National) uses the term "epidemic" in its own voice, with 2 more quoting the Gaza Health Ministry's declaration of an epidemic. RS hasn't been using the term epidemic (probably because as of now there haven't been any confirmed cases yet. There are strong fears of a coming epidemic, and polio has been found in the sewage, but thankfully no infections). At the very least the article needs to be considerably shortened, and name changed to "Polio discoveries" or something. Violates Crystal Ball. It's also not being (significantly) covered by RS on its own, but rather as part of the broader crisis. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Middle East. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis - Wouldn't be opposed to recreating the article later if more sources begin to call the Polio issue an epidemic, but a redirect would suffice for right now. Jdcomix (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Redirecting the current title if the term "epidemic" is not being used by multiple reliable sources would violate WP:NDESC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gaza humanitarian crisis. My first impression is that we should probably redirect. Now to read with care... Yeah, merge with Gaza humanitarian crisis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move or merge. There are plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage, so deleting it isn’t warranted. If kept, a move or rename to 2024 Gaza Strip polio outbreak or the like would be appropriate. I don’t oppose the merger, however the main article could get filled with a lot of more important and less important trivia; see what happened at one time to Palestinian law. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - and expand. Could be broadened to "infectious diseases outbreaks" instead of just polio, but it warrants its own coverage separate from starvation and other issues. FourPi (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 07:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/8/16/israel-war-on-gaza-live-children-killed-in-israeli-attack-on-jabalia-camp, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/16/un-chief-calls-for-polio-pause-in-gaza-war-to-tackle-virus and FourPi. Pachu Kannan (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Al Jazeera article does not use the term "Polio Epidemic" in its own voice. Hydromania (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza humanitarian crisis is a redirect (it should appear as a green link) so it won't be possible to redirect or merge to it. So you might want to look at ITS target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and rename article without using the term 'epidemic', as there is no metric that describes a cluster of three cases as an epidemic. My preference is to use the term 'cases' or 'outbreak' as per Bearian's reasoning and suggestion on 16 August 2024 immediately before AfD was relisted. AllPurposeScientist^blah 11:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that I generally agree with the original reasoning 2 weeks ago, but the situation appears to be more clearly defined now. AllPurposeScientist^blah 11:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis - there is no epidemic of polio in Gaza, and none of the sources used in the article describe the situation as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston UnCommon (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis. There still appears to be a single case confirmed in reliable sources. The only group claiming an "epidemic" is the unreliable Gaza Health Ministry, and an "outbreak" of one can easily be contained in another article. Seeing that the article title has already been changed, I am revising my !vote to redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, Gaza humanitarian crisis is not a possible target article because it is not an article, it is a Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a technicality. We could redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), which is what Gaza humanitarian crisis redirects to Boston UnCommon (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023-present). Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move the content to draft for now and redirect the title to Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). If there are more than a handful of additional cases reported, however, there should be an article at this title. I base this opinion on my own work as creator of articles including the 1916 New York City polio epidemic, 1990–1991 Philadelphia measles outbreak, 2018 United States adenovirus outbreak, 2019–2020 dengue fever epidemic‎, 2019 New York measles outbreak, and 2019 United States hepatitis A outbreak‎. BD2412 T 02:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Various reliable sources cover the topic extensively and directly so that it meets the requirement for notability and a standalone page is acceptable. A request to change the title is discussed and can be decided there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: covered by reliable sources. Meets NEVENT/GNG. C F A 💬 00:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as said by User:CFA and User:AllPurposeScientist. GunnarBonk (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a Keep consensus has been reached. An impartial editor who was not involved in this discussion can remove this from the AfD when the discussion time has elapsed. Please do not relist unless the editor finds an outsanding problem. AllPurposeScientist^blah 02:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R.S.C. Anderlecht (Superleague Formula team)

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

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Midtjylland (Superleague Formula team)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting CP (Superleague Formula team)

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

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing and the other is now dead. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur (Superleague Formula team)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There maybe enough for some basic form of WP:GNG pass, I found sources, [1] (primary source), [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (primary) , [7], [8], this one has a few hits on britsonpole.com which might be useful. [9], [10], [11]. Need I go on, there are a lot of hits to digest. There are more online, what kind of WP:BEFORE did you do? Besides, you talk a load of codswallop, I looked at your nominations just now, and the work load you did. It's nothing short than just, I don't like this shit so I am going to nominate all these articles for AfD. I don't disagree there are problems with these articles, but your process and this nomination, and the rest you've done. Well, you should be reported to WP:ANI for the process. You are not here to build an encyclopaedia. Govvy (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off all WP:PRIMARY do not count for notability, thus are all ignored. Reviewing them, this is what I say in WP:RS
- [12] - about the series, which gives more weight for the series, not the team
- [13] - about the partnership between F1 and the eponymous football team, the 'team' has pitiful amount of coverage to it. A regurgitation of article provided below.
- [14] - again WP:PRIMARY - do not count for notability.
- [15] - same as above, another regurgitation of press releases
- [16] - primarily about the series, far less about the series
- [17] - as above, another regurgitation of press releases
- britsonpole.com - same I mentioned below
- [18] is another WP:ROUTINE announcement that a team is retaining a driver for another season, does it assert notability for the team? The operating team is notable, no doubt.
- [19] - another announcement, dubious source. More like a site run by hobbyists/student journalist. Very little weight for WP:RS.
- [20] is about the 2010 season with a tiny bit to promote the races as usual as you would expect in local papers. Not much about the 'teams'
This may help pass in 2010 but this is 2024, so none of these will support the notability of the teams nominated or provide WP:SIGCOV. (Personal attack removed) BTW, you speak of WP:IDONTLIKEIT given by your response. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure I want to reply to you, but you do know there is nothing wrong with primary sources in an article, primary can be used to back up basic facts. You can use primary and secondary sources together to show a notable point. That is a point about facts matching each other. I honestly don't know why so many people forget this. You can break down the sources I provided all you like, I am just showing there are sources that can be used and some basic form that could pass, at what point did I say keep on the comment above, if I truly want an article to be kept, I would put keep in bold at the beginning and not comment! Govvy (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London. Nobody wants to keep this, and there's no consensus for any specific other outcome, making redirect to where it is mentioned the most consensual outcome. Whether the target list is worth keeping would be a matter for its own AfD. This does not exclude a merger of any content deemed useful subject to consensus on the target page. Sandstein 15:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Kyrgyzstan, London

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

Fails WP:GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Zero secondary sources. Only source provided is government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Kyrgyzstan, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London which is where all the relevant information about this embassy already is. It's a plausible search term so we best serve readers by taking them to the content we have rather than hoping search results (which may be several clicks/taps away) find it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the merge suggestion made my gidonb below. Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kyrgyzstan–United Kingdom relations, a brief article, where this information is needed and missing. The embassy article is an unjustified SPINOUT. Why wasn't an WP:ATD suggested? gidonb (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe it should be deleted? AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article merely confirms it exists without third party coverage. The 2 !votes above suggest 2 different redirect targets, neither of which I support. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder @LibStar Why do you not support merging and/or redirecting? Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm not sure that list is appropriate per WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. AusLondonder (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question. The list currently does exist, if you think it shouldn't nominate it for deletion, but while it does exist why do you not support a redirect to it? Why do you not support merging with the international relations article (which is definitely notable). Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Kyrgyzstan-UK page has about one good source. I wouldn't call that "definitely notable". Nonetheless, I don't have an issue with the embassies being mentioned there. AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 !votes above suggest 2 different redirect targets It suggests serious and independent thinking. Not one solution fits all. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and a lack of consensus of where to merge. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No no. One of us wanted to redirect and only one wanted to merge. gidonb (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AS Roma (Superleague Formula team)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Hungary–United Kingdom relations#Resident diplomatic missions. I don't think another relisting will lead to further comments. I'm closing this as a Merge so if there is any content relevant to the target article, it can be preservd and this article can be changed to a Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Budapest

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

Fails WP:GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sources provided do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Hungary, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article charts the significant history of the British Embassy in Budapest, the sources highlight its notability and link with the evacuation of Jews during the holocaust. AusLondoner is on a mindless campaign to delete all embassy pages. Cantab12 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As such it should be kept. Cantab12 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish consul rented space in a bank and declared it diplomatic premises to shelter Jews during the Holocaust. How is this related to the British embassy? AusLondonder (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*KEEP*~~ There is a link with the Swiss too who took over the site as a neutral power during WWII. Please stop. Cantab12 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Cantab12 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete unfortunately, many buildings have had to be used to shelter refugees. I don't see any significant coverage that indicates that this was particularly notable that would satisfy GNG. ForksForks (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hungary–United Kingdom relations#Resident diplomatic missions. While a case can be made to keep, as has been done above, the parent article is short and can contain this information without creating a real situation of UNDUE. Whatsmore, the information on the embassies now is minimal and less. Here, too, an ATD should have been proposed and, ideally, the merge discussion should have been used. gidonb (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To decide between delete, merge or redirect. The contribution of Cantab12 will have to be disregarded as it contains personal attacks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Important article about a notable building in Budapest. Cantab12 (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted. Plus just recycled another vague argument from another AfD. [21] LibStar (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GidonB. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSV Eindhoven (Superleague Formula team)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Porto (Superleague Formula team)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Nominator was topic banned from AfD, so I am procedurally closing this as "no consensus." Malinaccier (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympique Lyonnais (Superleague Formula team)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray S.K. (Superleague Formula team)

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

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girondins de Bordeaux (Superleague Formula team)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Basel 1893 (Superleague Formula team)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ain (Superleague Formula team)

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

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources, are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China (Superleague Formula team)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as a disruptive nomination (among the mass AfDs which, along with their attitude, got them TBanned). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Frozen Fourteen

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

Trivia without reliable independent sources about it. While it is mentioned in passing on some websites, it hasn't received significant attention, it doesn't eve seem to be mentioned in any books[22]. Fram (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Billboard Hot 100 as an ATD, since it appears verifiable, if not notable. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Way too insignifant detail to be merged to the main Billboard Hot 100 article: if people feel it should be mentioned somewhere, List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones would be a better place. Fram (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, not crazy about this idea either. These charts articles already suffer from some crufty stats listing as it it is. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. Appears to have been invented in a forum thread, never acknowledged by WP:RS. Mach61 12:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a coincidence, no actual significance. Reywas92^Talk 15:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial statistic of no real importance to its respective chart. The article's two sources don't even mention the subject by name, so unless further sourcing can be found, a merge wouldn't be appropriate either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Kapur

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The article has been padded-out with lots of passing mentions of the subject donating to this or that campaign, but the only significant coverage is in Caravan magazine (notably less positive than the current version of the article) and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (essentially an interview). One independent source isn't enough to achieve a neutral point of view. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I believe this eligible for soft deletion. – Joe (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically true. And another closer might come along and do just that. But, as for me, I like to see at least one other editor's opinion besides the nominator. I don't think a single opinion counts as "consensus". But that's how I handle things and if this discussion is relisted twice with no further participation, I probably will close this as a Soft Deletion. But after just a week, I like to relist to see if other editors have an argument to make. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 05:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The subject is mostly mentioned in the sources, not really meeting the significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. I think the sources found by participants should satisfies the nominator's concerns and that covers the "per nom" Delete opinion. That the sources are in a foreign language just means that assessment isn't very convenient for English-only editors but it doesn't negate their value as potentially reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Decker

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

Questionable notability. I could find limited sources with a Google search to satisfy the inline citations template. Therefore probably fails WP:GNG. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 02:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The "Willy Decker" in this AfD is a completely different one from the one that was the subject of the first AfD. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 02:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who directed a Henze opera world premiere and is listed in Who's Who? is notable. I have no time to look today but will next week unless this is closed by then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistings. More opinions would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference, per what I said before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[23] [24] [25] [26] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All four of those articles are in langauges other than English, how is the average reader who only speaks English supposed to verify what's being cited with these is truth? TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 03:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors, including myself, just use Google translate which is part of Chrome. Foreign language sources are very common on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the above linked references and the references in the article that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 12:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Christie

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NCRIC. A search yields much more hits for someone who appeared on Geordie Shore who may indeed be more notable, so for that reason I oppose redirect of this cricketer's article. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Hong Kong. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be relaxed about a redirect to List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers here - there was a single incoming link from the Geordie Shore chap which indicates there's generally not a major issue here and if necessary a dab page with the two redirects on it can be set up. I'd have thought, however, that the article on CricketCountry would satisfy the last point of SPORTCRIT and there's at least one article on the South China Morning Post from 2016, although it's partly behind a paywall. There's a case that could be made for keeping the article - there's certainly nothing in it that's contentious - there are a lot worse articles than this one that could be brought to AfD. But, again, for me the worst case here is a redirect. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue Square Thing (talk · contribs), I found a non-paywall copy of the South China Morning Post article on archive.today. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Careem, Nazvi (2016-10-24). "How browsing Facebook could change the life of Hong Kong cricket's newest recruit Kyle Christie. Perth-based bowler was surfing the net in Australia when he saw a recruitment call for Hong Kong-born players". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  The article notes: "Kyle Christie was browsing through Facebook when hestumbled upon a post by Cricket Hong Kong that caught his eye. The governing body for cricket in the city was looking for players born in Hong Kong and actively involved in the sport. Christie, 23, felt qualified. Hong Kong-born, playing for Perth side Kalamunda, the fast bowler who can bat replied. ... Within weeks, Christie went from being a club cricketer to one poised to make his full one-day international debut. He's one of the success stories of a programme to scour the world for talented people born in Hong Kong and willing to return to the city and contribute to the game. ... said Christie, whose father was in the Hong Kong police force for 20 years before the family left when he was five."
2. Wildie, Tom (2017-09-24). "Hong Kong chases 2019 Cricket World Cup berth against the odds". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  The article notes: "Hong Kong bowler Kyle Christie plies his trade at club side Midland-Guildford when not on international duty, and saw firsthand the standard required to play at elite level. ... Christie, 24, was born in Hong Kong but moved to Perth when he was three years old. He made his eligibility known to Hong Kong Cricket and, after a successful trial period, was selected in the side about a year ago."
3. Ananth, Pramad (2017-03-21). "Kyle Christie: The cricketer who debuted via Facebook". Cricket Country. Zee Media Corporation. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  The article notes: "When Cricket Hong Kong (CHK) had put up an advertisement on their Facebook page that read “Calling all Hong Kong born cricketers overseas,” Christie had immediately got in touch with CHK. Within a few months made his international debut for Hong Kong against Papua New Guinea (PNG). ... Christie has played with some big guns like Misbah-ul-Haq and Ian Bell (among others) in the recently concluded Hong Kong T20 Blitz. ... Christie is part of the ACC Emerging Teams Cup, which will be played in Bangladesh from March 25 to April 2."
4. "Kyle Christie eyes Kumar Sangakkara's wicket early as Jaguars set date with Gladiators in Hong Kong T20 Blitz 2018 Final". Cricket Country. Zee Media Corporation. 2018-02-10. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  The article notes: "Kyle Christie outshone the luminaries of the star-studded Hung Hom Jaguars to claim figures of 4-0-18-4 as his side convincingly beat Hong Kong Island United by 57 runs. ... Christie was born in Hong Kong and was there when his parents shifted base to Australia. In 2016, he played grade cricket in Perth when he saw an advertisement from Cricket Hong Kong on Facebook, saying ‘looking forward to seeing Hong Kong born players’. He got in touch. He was then invited for trials and things took on. From playing local cricket to rubbing shoulders with international players and making a difference, Christie’s cricket has come a long way."
5. "Perth-based Kyle Christie answers Hong Kong's call with local-born bowler named in squads to face PNG and Kenya". South China Morning Post. 2016-10-17. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.
  The article notes: "Perth-based fast bowler Kyle Christie was on Monday named in Hong Kong squads to face Papua New Guinea and Kenya in November. Cricket Hong Kong named two separate 14-man squads with Christie included for both series."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kyle Christie to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is https://www.cricketcountry.com/ a reliable source, is it a primary non-independent source? LibStar (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Country is published by Zee Media Corporation. According to the about page, "Cricket country is part of Indiadotcom Digital Private limited. India’s second largest Digital Entity touching more than 300 million monthly users and owns 30 plus digital properties including India.com, Zee news, Zee Business, Zee Hindustan, WION news, Bollywood Life and more." Cunard (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CricketCounty's OK as a source. You have to watch for hyperbole on some of their statistical articles, but it's generally reliable for news stuff like this I'd say. It's not a stats database, it's independent of the subject, it's generally reliable Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources and more participation might help us come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm satisfied the sourcing makes for a WP:GNG pass. AA (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. There was clear consensus against deletion, and some good arguments in favour of redirecting. But without consensus to redirect, it cannot be used as an alternative to Keep. Owen× ☎ 21:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmam Engey

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

Only two potential RS: Guy is RS, the Dina Thanthi source is only cited to a release date change and that seems to be mostly what they publish about movies from what I have seen (could not find the exact article sourced, insufficient info and from 1972). The other cited sources are variously not about topic (Ragunathan), retail (Mossymart), and a list (151 etc). BEFORE found no further RS. Redirect to the director may be a better alternative than deletion, per Mushy Yank, if this discussion doesn't result in Keep. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and India. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cast and director, full article by notable film historian in very reliable newspaper, sources for verification; all in all could be judged enough. A redirect to the director being absolutely warranted in my view, very opposed to deletion (I deproDed the page; same nominator).My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank, could you please point me towards that source if it's online somewhere? I searched and couldn't find it, and everything I could find was extremely sparse with details (hence the PROD and now this). I like to be able to keep articles and make them better if sources exist! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu article cited in the page (the source you call "Guy", I think) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's the one I counted as a reliable source - I was hoping you'd found the Dina Thanthi one (which I couldn't) to make it two RS. Thanks for clarifying! StartGrammarTime (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dina Thanthi source was simply an authentic poster I saw on social media, so I included the newspaper details without using the social media link. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sivaji_Ganesan_filmography#Films. I would not redirect to director's page as that page is quite poor. As nominator said, only two reliable sources on the page but it has no significant indepth coverage. If reliable secondary sources with indepth coverage can be found, let me know but till then fails wP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but the article by Randor Guy in The Hindu addresses the film directly and in depth. It is a strong indication of notability and was published in a column dedicated to "Tamil classics". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments to Keep and Redirect (an outcome I assume the nominator is okay with).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sivaji_Ganesan_filmography#Films per RangersRus. This has been open for weeks and still all we have found is a review in The Hindu. Yes, the review addresses the film, but it is a single source. It is paywalled so all I can see is the intro of the review, but even if it is significant coverage we have to consider WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which raises an unanswered question regarding independence. This is a case where we definitely need more than a single review to demonstrate notability. Ultimately an article should not be kept if there is insufficient information to write an encyclopaedic article. That is the case here. Redirecting would allow the page history to be recovered and the article recreated if a range of suitable secondary sources became available in the future. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last The Hindu source that I added mentions the film four times reiterating the director, actress and box office failure. Feel like this AFD was done quickly without going to Google Translate and finding Tamil-language sources. DareshMohan (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still only counts as one source, and multiple are needed - even if these are indeed independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the Hindu Tamil Thisai source [27]. Multiple new sources that I added mention different aspects of the film's failure. @Sirfurboy: DareshMohan (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy, the English Hindu archive link is not affected by the paywall so you can view it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For some reason the archive gave me no content when I looked yesterday. Reading it now, it is much as I expected. This review does give something to write the article off, but it remains a single source. We don't yet have any others. The WP:NEWSORGINDIA question remains, although there is no strong reason to suspect this one is not independent. If we had multiple sources, I'd be willing to count this as one. But we still need multiple sources for GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The sources are thin, but I am convinced there are enough to support this article. I would also support a merge, but I am skeptical of the targets mentioned here. Either way, that can be discussed outside of the AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to redirect but A. C. Tirulokchandar is a better target [28]. DareshMohan (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Analysis of added sources - The following sources were added to the article since my !vote. To count towards GNG each source must have significant coverage, be independent of the subject and be in a reliable secondary source. Some of these sources are the same publication, and count together, but that is moot as I dont think any reach significant coverage. I have reviewed them all in translation, and my thoughts are as follows:

[29] - This is just a line in a list of films. Not SIGCOV.
[30] - About a different film. Could not find any mention. Clearly not SIGCOV.
[31] Article about two "geniuses". Cannot see any mention of the film. Clearly not SIGCOV.
[32] A crowd of 150 people caused the film to run for 2 days. That's all it says. Not SIGCOV.
[33] Article about an actor, states they acted in the film. that is all. Not SIGCOV.
[34] Another article about the same actor also states they acted in the film and that the film did not touch 100 days. That is all. Not SIGCOV
[35] - This is the longest write up of all, again about the same actor. It says:
Where is Dharma: Director A.C. The film is directed by Triloka Chander and produced by Shanti Films. MS Viswanathan has composed the music for this. Sivaji Ganesan and J Jayalalithaa are playing the lead roles in it. But even though this film did not get a good reception in terms of collection, it became a film that attracted the hearts of the fans.
- that is all. That is not SIGCOV either. Bear in mind that significant coverage needs to provide information from which the page can be created. Other than the fact that this film flopped, we have almost nothing here to use in the article. Thus the keep votes appear to be premature. There is no pass of WP:GNG here. Happy to discuss the most suitable redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the film is தர்மம் எங்கே, and is mentioned in source 2 and 3. Source 5 is the one I mentioned earlier, which also just mentions the director, actor, actress and box office failure. Since they might not be SIGCOV, maybe a second review will help. DareshMohan (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So then source 2 says of the same actor:

Then on 15th July, he took action film 'Where is Dharma' directed by A.C. Thirulokachandar. Jayalalitha acted opposite Shivaji in this.

This is not SIGCOV. There is nothing about the film here. Source 3 is merely the title and nothing else in a long list of collaborations of the "two geniuses". Nothing but the title. Clearly not SIGCOV. So again, none of these have SIGCOV. The only significant coverage in any source seen so far is in the Hindu source, which is actually a review of the film. But a single review is never enough for GNG, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA raises questions as to whether even that one is sufficient. This is not, under any measure, a GNG pass. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: There are sufficient sources to save the article from deletion. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? Could you list any three sources that have significant coverage, that are independent reliable secondary sources? Votes don't matter, but actual sources do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - This editor has been canvassed to this deletion discussion [36]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was NOT canvassing! He just informed me of the AfD, and I volunteered to salvage the article. In fact, most of it was expanded by me. Since it's not on my watchlist and the Indian cinema task force didn't alert me, I don't know how else I could have known about the AfD. While I've been working my butt off (sorry, no rudeness or profanity intended) since the last few years to save pre-2000s Tamil film articles from deletion, others relish in getting them deleted rather than seeking help expanding. The uncontested, uninformed deletion of Puthiya Vaarpugal (I got it restored and expanded) angered me enough to prevent other Tamil film articles from suffering a similar fate. The English Hindu article and multiple Hindu Tamil articles guarantee the article deserves to exist since they are NOT passing mentions. They actually talk about the film's release date and reception, and how it was Sivaji's only unsuccessful film in an otherwise celebrated year. Also notable because Sivaji was primarily a dramatic actor, yet this film was atypical by favouring action. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly fair enough that you should be commenting here, but it is not a WP:APPNOTE if a single contributor only is approached based on their expected views. In any case, what still matters is sources. We do not have SIGCOV in multiple sources. If you are able to find such significant coverage, then the article would be shown to be notable, but as it stands, we do not. Can you name three sources with significant coverage, that are independent, reliable secondary sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the notification neutral. On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article Check this article's history, he is the main contributor. This editor (Kailash) devotes his time to improving old Tamil-language films. Even if he voted to delete the article, I wouldn't mind as maybe because this films isn't famous like Puthiya Vaarpugal. Just try to applaud his efforts. There seems to be implicit bias on English Wikipedia towards non-English films. There are several sources in this film but based on your argument it seems like if all the information was in one source instead of compiled from many, the film would have been notable. DareshMohan (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not bias. It is really quite simple. Have a read of WP:GNG. We need the sources. So again Could you list any three sources that have significant coverage, that are independent reliable secondary sources? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. I don't see this article as "racist" or "harmful" but there is a consensus among participants to delete so that is my closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli Ashkenazi Jews

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

I believe this page should be deleted due to no encyclopedic value and numerous WP:BLP and Original Research violations that make rescuing this page impossible. Whizkin (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further arguments:

Overly Broad and Non Educational: Approximately 40% of Israel's population could be included in this list, making it excessively broad (by the way, note that in modern times many people are second or third generation mixed Ashkenazi/Mizrahi origins which further increases the percentage of people that can be included). Israeli Jews can be much better classified by specific country of origin (and indeed we have such categories). Furthermore broadly categorizing random, secular individuals based on their supposed ethnic origin reduces people's identities to simplistic binary labels that offer no value. For example, the fact that Gilad Shalit is Ashkenazi is completely meaningless.
Vague classification: Jewish identities, particularly in Israel, do not always fit neatly into categories like Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, or Sephardi. These labels are tied to religious traditions that go back hundreds of years and do not necessarily correspond to specific countries of origin. For example, a person of Georgian Jewish descent could be either Ashkenazi or non-Ashkenazi, not to mention the many people that have a mixed heritage.
Inaccurate and Original Research : The vast majority of non-observant Jews on this list do not have reliable sources confirming their classification as Ashkenazi. For many individuals, there is no direct citation that verifies their inclusion in this category. Attempting to infer whether a person is Ashkenazi based on their last name, or even their parent's country of origin constitutes original research. Not to mention that many of the inferences are plain wrong, such as in the cases of Mili Avital and Zefania Carmel. This is also a major BLP violation which alone should result in deleting most of the people on the list.
Offensive and Bordering on Racist: Classifying individuals, particularly secular Jews, and Jews of mixed heritage, as Ashkenazi or Mizrahi/Sephardi without their self-identification can be seen as offensive. The page risks causing harm by labeling people in ways that they may not identify with.

For these reasons, this page is harmful, does not serve a meaningful purpose and should be deleted. Whizkin (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Whizkin (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main point for me is that this list is so overly broad as to be pointless, covering nearly 40% of the Israeli population. Number 5 7 13:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alaexis_¿question? 21:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While some of the arguments above could be a bit over the top, Ashkenazi is a vague or broad brush descent, making the list not very encyclopedic. As the once and maybe still dominant minority there is also little interest in this group. People "intermarry", but not really as all feel Israeli and Jews, many generations were born in Israel, the descents fade to disappear. Especially this particular grouped one. Supporting the recommendation to delete. gidonb (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and add List of Israeli Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews to AfD for identical reasons. DGtal (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Themes common in gay porn

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 4#Themes common in gay porn. C F A 💬 03:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. C F A 💬 03:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was of questionable value, leading to this discussion. So delete if this is not a useful search term. Do *NOT* merge. Typical porn site category list, sourced to a porn site. No independent RS interest found in search. Encyclopedic content already covered by gay pornography. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a glossary of terms used in pornography, so 'rename and broaden to glossary of pornography (or a similar title) to match the content (many entries are not exclusive to gay porn). Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thryduulf. Rename Glossary of pornography; and clean up.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this is even useful as the start of a "glossary of pornography". Most of the "themes" listed are not specific to porn; they are just sexual slang terms. (Some of the others are just ordinary words like bodybuilder and Arab.) It would make more sense to add the relevant terms to the short list in the Sexual slang article and/or create a spin-off list from that if needed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I suspect part of the relist comment may be referring to my statement above, I want to clarify. If some of the sexual slang terms merit explanation somewhere on Wikipedia, that could be done without copying the specific content in this article. I was not in any way suggesting a merge. --RL0919 (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article reads like a FAQ, which is disallowed under WP:NOTGUIDE. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seemed like an uncontroversial deletion but there are suggestions of a Keep and Rename and even an editor arguing for Delete suggests some content might be Merged. I'd like to see a firmer consensus to Delete or take any action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:SYNTH no sources for psecifically this subject. --Altenmann >talk 04:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOR. Also WP:NOTDICTIONARY TarnishedPath^talk 13:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH / WP:TNT / should have been done at the RFD since the previous AFD resulted in "redirect". Take your pick. Steel1943 (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Closing this as Delete due to the absence of any sources that provide SIGCOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BizTalkRadio

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

Subject does not contain the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Business. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't not know why this is up for deletion but I vote keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmtvfan (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are issues with the article, but the first course of action should be to correct those instead of deletion. Stereorock (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would those arguing to Keep please sign their comments and point out which sources provide SIGCOV as asked by the nominator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure what the keep votes are referring to because I have found zero significant coverage. Only a few namechecks in obscure radio blogs. C F A 💬 04:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While a national radio network, it is lower-tier enough that significant coverage is unlikely to really exist. Undoubtedly a remnant of more existence-based inclusion standards (despite the lack of connection to, or not being, notability) that had not been shaken off in this topic area in 2012. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKRR-LP

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wyoming. Let'srun (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks noble subject (KmTvFan me (talk to me 03:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another remnant of the much looser inclusion standards of 2006. The only known programming was a national religious network and a slate announcing that network had moved to a co-owned station — and all that without sourcing, as it has been tagged as unsourced since 2021. If there was any significant coverage here, there probablly should have been some by now. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source, no article Danubeball (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Otago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Otago

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

Can't find any sources that talk about this flag. The current sources are a passing mention related to the designer's opinion on something else, and flags of the world which is a deprectated source. couldn't find any books, news articles, even on the council website wasn't anything. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying im not saying this flag is inaccurate just saying its not notable enough to have its own article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very odd that it's not on the council website - it is the official flag and is flown outside their headquarters. Also not quite sure why FOTW is a deprecated source - it's still active and currently undergoing a major upgrade. I'll look for more sources. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOTW ->Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Merge into the main Otago article. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not understanding what the problem is. Otago is a region of the South Islands, and the region has a flag, and Wikipedians have written an article about that flag. Wikipedia's flag collection includes many articles on regional territorial flags. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the flag doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability to have its own article, there are literally no sources that I could find TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it looks like most if not all the sources are print only :/ They do exist, though. And while I hesitate to use OTHERSTUFF as an argument, I'd agree that if other regional authorities' official flags are notable enough for articles, it seems like a double-standard to have this one face deletion. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into the article for Otago. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Otago not enough notability nor enough content for a stand alone article for this. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is by far the most sensible option for this article. The flag exists, it relates to Otago and therefore should be included in that article.NealeWellington (talk) 10:48, 17 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Yudong

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

I can’t see any in depth coverage in RIS to indicate that this subject is notable. There may be sources in Chinese I didn’t manage to turn up - if not this article should go. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and China. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have been finding Chinese language sources for this subject, who seems to be a pretty famous director. I haven't yet found any RS that demonstrate individual notability, but I'll look again later today and report my findings or not findings as applicable. Our article is longer than his Baidu page, which seems kinda sus. Folly Mox (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some sources I found:
1. Wang, Xiaoye 王小野 (2021-02-18). ""数字文创展——来自四维空间的线圈世界"展览开幕：用科技与艺术传递光与爱" ["Digital Cultural and Creative Exhibition - Coil World from Four-Dimensional Space" Exhibition Opens: Delivering Light and Love with Technology and Art]. china.com [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
  The article provides a passing mention. The article notes: "中央新影集团著名导演朱昱东". From Google Translate: "Zhu Yudong, a famous director from China Film Group"
2. "电影《海霞》要拍续集了" [The movie "Haixia" is going to have a sequel]. Wenzhou Business Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2012-08-30. p. 文娱 14.
  The article notes: "月中旬到10月初开拍。执导此部电影的总导演为中央电视台副台长、中央新影集团总裁高峰。导演为中央电视台科教节目制作中心导演朱昱东，他的电影剧本《达西的季节》、《他们》曾分别获得国家广播电影电视总局夏衍杯剧本奖、中国台湾“行政院新闻局”优良剧本征选大"
  From Google Translate: "...Filming will start from mid-October to early October. The chief director of this movie is Gao Feng, deputy director of CCTV and president of China Film Group. The director is Zhu Yudong, director of CCTV's Science and Education Program Production Center. His movie scripts "Darcy's Season" and "They" have won the Xia Yan Cup Script Award of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television and the Excellent Script Selection Competition of the "Executive Yuan News Bureau" of Taiwan, China..."
Cunard (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Chinese Wikipedia article was deleted in December 2010 after a sparsely attended discussion at zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2021/12/04#朱昱东. The sources I found suggest Zhu Yudong is notable but are not by themselves enough for him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. If more sources cannot be found, I would recommend delete. I hope more sources can be found. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking into this. Mccapra (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Draft:Bids for 2040 Summer Olympics. I have never closed an AFD with a cross-namespace Merge request, we'll see if XFDcloser accepts this closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bids for the 2040 Summer Olympics

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

Article was created despite there being a declined draft at Draft:Bids for 2040 Summer Olympics. Also, the bidding process for the 2040 Summer Olympics has not even started yet, so this is still WP:TOOSOON. GTrang (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge usable content then delete Metalhead11000 (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or selectively merge to the draft. Far too soon for an article. C F A 💬 02:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge usable content into the draft then delete. I brought up the fact that the 2040 Olympics are over a decade and a half away on the talk page just before, and bidding likely won't start until sometime around 2026, so definitely too soon. Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, and rewrite Official Bid section. KyleBYerrick (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a site for speculation. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bids for the Olympic Games. StanSpencer (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just mentioning that it really doesn't matter that there was a draft that was declined. Draft space is optional and they're allowed to disagree with the decline reason of WP:TOOSOON. I'm not sure I agree with them, but I just wanted to mention it so nobody passing by gets the wrong idea. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Only argument for the removal of this article from mainspace is WP:TOOSOON. Article subject has already significant coverage with the number of references presented, and there is no doubt that the subject will be notable in the future. That being said, moving article to draftspace is what should happen, as there is no point deleting this article for the exact same thing to be rewritten at a later date. Mn1548 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a draft at Draft:Bids for 2040 Summer Olympics. Two drafts on the same topic is not a good idea, which is why the best option would be to selectively merge whatever isn't in the draft. C F A 💬 14:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Karkera

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Basic resume/cv material. Nothing near even 1 GNG source. This closest thing to even 1 GNG source is an interview (reference #5 circa August 15th). Tagged by others for wp:notability since February. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find a bunch of PR items in my search, nothing about this fellow in RS. Sourcing now in the article is about patents and various funding announcements, neither of which help prove notability. Not meeting BLP requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, India, and California. C F A 💬 03:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and reads as resume. Nothing in the sources that help with subject's notability. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. I'm going to close this discussion as Keep. Editors interested in converting this article into a Redirect can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Antònia Mínguez

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

Suggest redirect to List of FC Barcelona Femení players. None of the sources in the article focus on the subject specifically (fails WP:SIGCOV), just as one member of a team. The team was notable, and several individual members are independently notable – but Mínguez does not appear to be one of them. I feel like WP:SPORTBASIC applies without needing to consider the weight of a potential role in women's history, as the sources that do mention her as part of the team, don't suggest she had any greater role than simply being part of the team.

Furthermore, parts of the article that are about the team and their historic first match, appear to be copy-pasted from other articles about notable teammates (e.g. Lolita Ortiz), while the paragraph about the 50th anniversary of the match appears to be close paraphrasing – if not direct machine-translated copyvio – of the source (a primary source that is the main source used in the article, too). All in all, there is more focus on the match and the team and passing mentions that Mínguez was involved. Not sufficient for an article. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Spain. C F A 💬 03:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. @Kingsif: It is behind a paywall, but this 2021 article in El Periódico is focused on Maria Antònia Minguez and Sandra Paños gets it over the line for me. There are also other articles cited in Catalan Wikipedia worth checking out. Looks like not enough WP:BEFORE. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've read that source, Mínguez and Paños discuss how Mínguez joined the club (ad in newspaper) and then just about how the environment of women's football has changed. It's not about her or her career, it's just including her in a story of how Barça Femení grew from where it started to be in the Champions League. And probably only including her because the current player they got to take part was the goalkeeper. As for the Catalan WP article, it has fewer sources and they're just some of the same. Trust me, I've done BEFORE.
Like, this isn't to say Mínguez was not important for the team, but that she does not meet Wikipedia notability standards as she is only ever mentioned in sources in relation to "DYK Barça Femení was founded in 1970 and she was the goalie". Especially when that is all we can say of her notability, we should likewise keep our coverage in relation to the 1970 Barça Femení team. Other players from that team were much more actively involved in e.g. management and promotion, and are more worthy BIO/BLP candidates, but that does not mean every player warrants their own (largely copy-and-paste of the generic team details) bio. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, unless better sourcing can be found. Giant Snowman 14:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following additional sources, probably gets over the line now. Giant Snowman 16:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're (hopefully) not source-counting when they're all the same content... Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I probably would like to see more in-depth sourcing, but what's there is okay for me. I don't see anything wrong with the article. Govvy (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Expanded the article to include more about her early life and family and the influence of goalkeeper coach Antoni Ramallets. Added more coverage including a 2021 article featuring Mínguez on SER 100 following her SER Catalunya television interview, plus a 2022 article in El Diario featuring Mínguez and two other former players. Plus the 2021 article mentioned earlier in El Periodico. Surely this is enough to satisfy WP:BASIC, and arguably even WP:GNG. Pinging GiantSnowman. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the article to include more about her early life and family - please see WP:PSEUDO for this part. Padding out a BLP with personal details isn't demonstrating a subject's notability and we have to prioritise privacy if there is any doubt. Your expansion includes exactly one sentence about her football career, the rest is about her private life.

The Cadena SER article is a good 40% not about Mínguez, but about Barça and how women's footballers were treated in 1970. The parts about Mínguez are largely quotes from Mínguez herself (see SPORTBASIC) that are saying the same things as before, about that first match. I.e. she's not being interviewed about her career because SER considers her a great player, she's being interviewed to talk about the 1970 match and women's football back then. (And most likely, she's being interviewed because she's suitable and available, not because of anything she did as a player to set her apart.) Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is arbitrarily applying present-day sports criteria to a historical sports biography. Regardless, WP:BASIC can trump the sport-specific criteria. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further conversation. While a majority of participants are arguing for a Keep, the nominator still has concerns that warrant a few more days of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect She's WP:BLP1E and should be redirected to List of FC Barcelona Femení players. She doesn't meet GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. There is a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Trey

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

Procedural nomination on J2009j's behalf as they had some technical issues. I am neutral and just re-filing this.

"I believe this article does not meet any notability criteria. There is 1 barely reliable billboard article that can be considered a real source. All the articles are interviews, press, releases, and on some random sites. I do not understand how it was even accepted in the first place.

For example, there are sources like 4 "Ryan Trey Songs, Albums, Reviews, Bio & More |..." AllMusic. Retrieved July 29, 2024. or P, Milca (August 25, 2018). "Ryan Trey Previews "August" Album With "Mutual Butterflies"". HotNewHipHop. Retrieved July 29, 2024., or sources 8, 2, 3 - those are all interviews, or press releases. Those are not national magazines, but some sites with news online. Then most of the sources from 13- to 24 are literally interviews on online news sites. All, except an article on Billboard. So why are those considered "reliable" sources? " Star Mississippi 01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Missouri. Star Mississippi 01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I generally prefer not to engage in AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussions, as my focus is on improving and creating articles for notable subjects. However, I feel compelled to address the nomination of this article. Nominating an article simply because an editor's draft was rejected seems unwarranted. The sources cited, such as the one from BET, provide significant coverage and should not be dismissed as mere interviews.[37] These sources, along with others, clearly demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I believe the article is well-supported and merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Afro 📢Talk! 07:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I never nominated anything before. J2009j (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally fine. It happens to all of us at one time or another. I tried to fix it but realized it would just be easier to delete and nominate on your behalf. Star Mississippi 01:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 2,3 and 19 are directly about this individual and have been identified as RS by CiteHighlighter. I think we have more than enough with what's given. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3 is a review, which is a paragraph long personal opinion.

Source 2 is an interview, and interview cannot be used as a reliable so urce.

Source 19 - is an interview again and it does not establish notability. It is what a person says about themselves. J2009j (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trey has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and not self-published, so easliy passes WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example, that is other than an interview? I am confused because it seems same criterias are ignored on wikipedia for other articles. J2009j (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if not procedural keep for a WP:POINTed nomination. There is plenty of secondary coverage outside of interview transcripts, and certainly more than enough to write an article (e.g.: [38][39][40]). The multiple interviews in Billboard, while they don't directly contribute to GNG, are good indications of notability. And there are many other, shorter articles with secondary coverage that would've added up to GNG anyways. Strong pass in my opinion. C F A 💬 00:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to @Afrowriter:, the creator. It appears this was a bad faith nomination that I inadvertently assisted on by helping with the broken template. I do not want to close it to make it look like I'm hiding anything, but no objection if someone else wants to do so. Star Mississippi 01:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an easy Keep so I'd suggesting that we let it run 7 days and encourage Afrowriter not to stress out about this. I've found that early closures can be challenged at DRV and it would be nice to not prolong this with an additional review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok thanks @Liz and @Star Mississippi I have no issue with the article being nominated for Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions. As I mentioned earlier on my talk page, I respect the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and believe it is best to allow other editors to review and discuss the articles before making any decisions.

I have volunteered willingly to assist @J2009j in improving his draft. However, he seems intent on using my article as a reference for his declined article and feels that nominating it for deletion would be a good idea. I have had other drafts declined in the past, and rather than being discouraged, these experiences have motivated me to learn from my mistakes and improve. Afro 📢Talk! 05:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as this appears to have been a WP:POINTed nom requested in bad faith. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Most of the Keep views relied on the popularity of the organization's data products, which as the others pointed out, does not lend to the notability of the organization itself. Some did a WP:VAGUEWAVE towards GNG, but those who actually reviewed the sources critically found them all to be primary or offering no significant coverage. I also have good reason to believe MichaelDhaenens is Mr. Michaël Dhaenens, the organization's Head of IT, Data & Delivery, tainting his views here with COI. All this leaves us with a rough, P&G-based consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Credit Data

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

Non-notable, could only find primary sources LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found some academic journal articles to establish notability for Global Credit Data and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep organization is a key player in the financial industry, offering extensive credit risk data that is crucial for financial institutions and researchers. Its contributions and collaborations with major banks around the world underline its significance and notability. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how notability works; notability isn't equivalent to importance. See WP:N. Janhrach (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are available to meet WP:GNG etc 92.40.196.243 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've improved the article's structure. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing either points to reports published by this organization or are PRIMARY sources. None of the sources provide in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters above can point to any particular page/paragraph in their sources which meets our criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company's data products are cited in at least 361 studies, including some studies in very good journals. Most of the time, Google Scholar does not pick up on data citations, so I think this is a pretty good indication that that the data created by the company are in widespread use. Most of these publications will describe the data in a standalone section, so I consider this to be significant independent coverage of the data product. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company doesn't inherit notability from its product. The article is clearly about the company, not the product. Janhrach (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some proper source analysis rather than statements of 'I found x source' or 'x source is available', please elaborate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources listed is a valid reason for GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Keep GCD (Global Credit data is active in this nich Credit Risk make, see our more recent collaboration/Publication with ECB https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2954~1d1f8942c9.en.pdf?59655971c5e2084fe32ab99288b1eb6b and our start of collaboration with UNEP FI https://globalcreditdata.org/unepfi-esg-climaterisk/ . We also have annual collaboration with ICC Trade Register https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/icc-trade-register-report/. For all our recent activities, initiative and publication, you can saw it on our linkedin webpages https://www.linkedin.com/company/globalcreditdata

Warm Regards,MichaelDhaenens (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources or confirmation of routine business activities, they don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelDhaenens: Are you from the company? If yes, read WP:COI, please. Janhrach (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn is hardly a reliable source, saying we and our implies you work for the company, Michael. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Links I find are in trade journals, PR items or brief mentions [41], none of which help. Sources 1 and 4 now in the article are tagged as non-RS by Cite Highlighter, so non-reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're associated with the company, you must declare any conflict of interest here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Oaktree b. Under NCORP, we have a higher standard for notability. While "they get cited a lot" or "people use their work" might fly for some people (see, for example, NACADEMIC), it does not establish notability for corporations. Brief mentions, even in academic journals, are not significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in google news seems rather routine and would not satisfy WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Asked by the admin a few comments above to review sources: the ECB is a government body, usually considered a primary source, then we have the company's own website, which is also primary... The only decent sourcing in the article is Source 2, where a peer-reviewed journal uses data from the company to analyze things (which is fine I suppose, it's not directly about the company however). None of the sources presented are helpful and most aren't even useful for the various reasons listed in this comment. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to comment on the remainder of the sources given above: a trade register and linkedin, neither of which are acceptable for proving notability. I'm afraid none of the new sources presented can be helpful in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GCD (which isn't a company btw, it's an organisation with member banks) is definitely notable — it represents 50+ of the world’s biggest banks and is a key player in credit risk benchmarking. Their data and reports are widely used in academic studies, industry reports, and by regulators, showing they have a real impact on the financial sector. As previous commenters have set out, and as can be see from the 10 and half pages of google scholar results of papers talking about their database (one of the primary functions of GCD), there are plenty of reliable sources on GCD, easily meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hentheden (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An organisation still falls under GNG/WP:NCORP criteria which requires in-depth content including "independent content" *about* the *organisation*. Establishing notability according to the criteria isn't simply about getting mentions in "reliable sources" or showing the number of Google Hits or baldly saying that in your opinion is it definitely notable. We require particular types of sources which have a specific type of content *about the organisation*. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus forming here (neither for Keep nor Delete) and I don't think an additional relisting would help solidify the arguments presented so far. I see WP:NLIST being used for both Keeping the articles and then as a reason to Delete them.

One element I do see some consensus for is that these articles, at the very least, need some consolidation or pruning. Perhaps the editors who want to preserve these articles should rethink them and consider whether it would be a good idea to Merge them into one, more selective article. Again, this is a No consensus closure, not a Keep, and if there is no improvement, there could easily be a follow-up AFD a few months from now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

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

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Lists, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion are:

Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are reliably documented, and the list is too long to be in one article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOT. This isn't a valid keep argument and doesn't address the concern that this essentially just a massive database copy/dump. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:COPYVIO I have to agree with Fram: making an inferior copy of someone else's database is really not within our purview. There's probably some WP:NOT guideline covering that aspect, but the fact that it is a copy of only some of the fields doesn't ameliorate that it is a comprehensive copy of every entry. And without that copying there's really nothing here, as it is the sole source for it would appear well over 90% of the entries. I have to think that it's not possible to source this otherwise without repeating the other author's original research. I wouldn't have a problem with the obviously much smaller list of surviving mills, for which the copied database could be used as a source for certain information. But in this case we are just stealing someone else's work, even if we aren't stealing all of it and that theft was not the intent. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I contest the claim of copyvio. As for the one source claim, the DHM database itself draws on many sources. Thus the lists draw on many sources too. For info, the Dutch Wikipedia lists cover all windmills, though they have split by existing and "vanished" mills. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but even though I agree with not retaining a copy of the database, facts aren't copyrightable, only the presentation of those facts. Still though, what's essentially a copy is still essentially a copy, and not something we should be hosting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs further discussion and contribution from other editors to reach a clear consensus. Would encourage editors to consider neutral notices at neutral venues to seek further input, if they feel it is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it meets WP:NLIST it still goes against what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. A list of every single windmill in the Netherlands that is just a copy of a database is not within the scope of the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems to me this is a valid yet excessively detailed list that fails WP:NOTDB on its face but is also a valid list, so I'm not really sure what to suggest here. It definitely needs an edit, but it doesn't need to be deleted entirely. A quick translated search shows over 1,000 articles in Dutch related to both Friesland and windmills, so it's definitely not a random topic. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus. And to the IP commenting, an AFD can't close a discussion with an order to edit the article in a certain way as editing is a volunteer activity. And it's not the closer's responsibility to carry out participants' wishes with editing choices. There are a limited number of possible outcomes from an AFD discussion, Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasoning of Traumnovelle. The individual windmills aren't notable, so WP:NLIST applies. The group isn't notable, so these lists are out of scope. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all with a caveat. This should be urgently shortened to ONE PROVINCIAL LIST of surviving windmills, with separate listings for former windmills only where these have an article. Windmills have HUGE cultural value for the Dutch. Mostly existence value. Hence the books, lists, databases, and RS media articles. We should set ourselves apart by not mirroring complete databases. If all this can be set in motion after this debate - great. Otherwise, discuss on the talk page or just BOLD. On a personal note, I can add that yesterday I made a detour to see another windmill in my state. A bit sad, without sails and a warning ribbon around. 3 down, and a few to go. gidonb (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]