Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 14 - 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 delete‎. Snowing socks. Star Mississippi 02:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article needs to be assessed properly per the discussion also going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Theme. First of all, it is shocking as seeing who accepted the article is now a block user of a sock. While going further on the article talk page I see that who created the article already admitted that he or she was paid and it’s also a sock to who accepted the article. That means they all planned to promote the artist here on Wikipedia with some sort of promotional news on blogs about the artist and his music. Also be aware that this article has never been nominated for AFD. It was the draft that was nominated which was supposed to be a keep. Gabriel (……?) 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:: As per nom. In addition, majority of the references do not meet the requirements for reliability. I can only spot a few reliable sources. Mevoelo (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and Salt. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheChineseGroundnut for background. Blatant advert pushed by sock farm. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that this article was previously the subject of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Johnel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by the nominator and the issues discovered by the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Theme. The article is clearly a promotional attempt that uses other promotions as support. The whole operation is enthusiastic but unreliable, and the singer does not meet WP's notability requirements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - won a made up in one day award for up and coming but essentially non-notable music guy. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Issues surrounding the fact that this artist under a sock farm and UPE is definitely involved. Fails NMUSICIAN and GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, sockpuppets involved in article creations are automatic red flags. Sir MemeGod  13:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. No reason has been presented for deletion. Star Mississippi 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article by the Indie band Crooks & Nannies is only responsible for talking about 3 albums, this is too poor to deserve an encyclopedic article could be WP:PROMO & WP:BAND.Alon9393 (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid nomination rationale is provided. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 The article mentions 3 albums, and that's it, there is no clear context where you want to get there, it could be pormotional WP:PROMO that is not valid on Wikipedia. --Alon9393 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alon9393`You have not followed the advice you have received from many other editors. Please slow down or stop participating in and creating AfD discussions until you better understand the policies and guidelines. You have not listed a valid nomination rationale under which the article may be deleted. "Only three albums, this is too poor" is not a reason to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 Self promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or about projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, it must be remembered that the rules of encyclopedic articles apply to this type of page as to any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or close projects. I suggest you read it WP:PROMO. --Alon9393 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alon9393 Believe me, I know what PROMO is. This article is not in any way "promotional." It is a good example of WP:NPOV. The subject may not be notable, I have no idea, but you've advanced no case either way here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 Ok, then I'm going to create a musical band and I'll retrofit the main entrance and add only 3 albums. Would you be in favor of that initiative? --Alon9393 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an artist with no albums could be notable in theory. Sources seem pretty reliable even if the article is short, it's in no way promotional. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Appearing on non notable films doesn't show notability because it can't draw WP:SIGCOV from sources.~~ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, and South Korea. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it to draft... Aidillia (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Aidillia to draftify rather than delete. Delete: as per NACTOR. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 16:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I so much sense resubmitting after another. But if there is a bit notability, like appearing on non-notable films, and likely may later be notable in the future, I will support userfying. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to International Socialist Alternative. asilvering (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article subject demonstrates extremely limited levels of notability in terms of coverage actually about the group in question. Search online doesn't reveal any extensive coverage to justify a distinct article for it. Suggest therefore this article be redirected to International Socialist Alternative. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, previous state of article prior to recent edits was sourced with 19 references comprising:

- 11 via self-published blogs or websites of which 8 were the website of Socialist Alternative and other ISA sections and the remaining three self-published pieces by other communist groups. This is a fundamental breach of

WP:SELFPUB and more importantly WP:ABOUTSELF on the grounds that an article must not be primarily based on self-published information.

- 8 independent sources where the majority of them were dead links or didn't actually make any mention of Socialist Alternative yet were being used as inline citations to imply they were (such as this one about COP26 protests[1]).

As a result of this the article, when reduced to the only sources that could be judged suitable for inclusion (and even one of those is questionable) there is extremely limited demonstration of meeting notability requirements for a standalone article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'D and at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland)) which would have been helpful to have mentioned in the deletion nomination so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: although the nominator's rationale is clear and their suggestion might make sense, I totally disapprove the removal of material they have made before nomination and their repeated reverts of reinsertion of it. Yes, some of the coverage was primary, yes, some of it had only passing mentions of the local party but the current version is a grotesque skeleton of what we should have judged, and the lack of mention of the 1st AfD (although indicated during the editwar to which the page was subject) is not extremely fair. This is some sort of procedural keep !vote. Let time allow competent users to rework the page with better sources and take this to AfD later if that seems fair but not like this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank please read the rationale I put above. The material was removed not because it was primary sources, but because it was self-published by the party themselves and was therefore in breach of WP:ABOUTSELF, while many of the claimed reliable sources referenced didn't actually make any mention of the group in question but were instead being used to suggest they were in a blatant WP:SYNTH breach (i.e. Reliable Source states "there was a blue car on the road", self-published source claims "I own the blue car", both presented together to suggest Reliable Source supports claim of who owned the car).

As to your comment "I totally disapprove the removal of material they have made before nomination and their repeated reverts of reinsertion of it"

I removed that material a month before nominating it and made fair efforts at both that time and in the intervening month to find reliable sources to document this group. I couldn't find any further mentions. As for my "repeated reverts", those are entirely justified due to the material being reinserted breaching multiple policies as explained in the rationale, and an AfD discussion isn't a reason to stop editing the page to keep it within our policies. Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Again, I concur that a redirect might make sense and that your nomination can be justified. And you mention indeed self-published not primary sources, my bad. And indeed your first massive cut was on August, 17 and your first attempt at redirecting on September, 7. But a question then, on August 17, your edit summary is: "Cutting article down to only notable mentions in third-party sources. Only small local papers but look decent enough to call "reliable" for now." Does that not mean that you found that in the version of that day, the article was acceptable as a standalone article? As for the rest, your idea was and is a Redirect of the article but size matters in terms of redirects and if you remove 7 sections, it's a whole different story. If a party is mildly notable as a local version of an international one, can we not source their particular positions regarding various topics with their own publications used as a primary source? (It's a real question). It's not just about FACTS ("I own a blue car/I don't") but about ASSERTIONS/OPINIONS/POSITIONS/: "Johnny thinks that Socialists should own blue cars not red cars." "Johnny said: Red cars are cool; but blue cars are cooler.." (cf. his personal website; assuming Johnny is a notable person, of course; and that's what we're here to decide).

I personally would not have edit-warred over this during an AfD but maybe you are correct. I wonder why the creator is not voicing their opinion here, btw. Happy to change my !vote to R. or Neutral if you really think the removed material is not "acceptable" as "opinions" attributed to the subject (what they protested against, what they support). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank thanks for the detailed reply.

On the change of position between August 17 and September 7, the issue was at the time I was only cutting it down to notable mentions as it stood and therefore thought it best to come back some time later and take another look at it with fresh eyes and once again evaluate it and see if I can find sources I missed first time around (and so far haven't been able to). At present there are basically three sources, of which one is still self-published and I do think it's arguable both ways as to whether it's suitable or not (namely the Kazakh protest).

can we not source their particular positions regarding various topics by their own publications used as a primary source?

In short, no because it breaches policy on self-published. Basically we should only be using self-published sources in extremely limited circumstances that are completely non-controversial. For instance an actor's birthday, if they've posted about it on their own site or social media would be an acceptable usage. And when using such sources they mustn't breach five conditions which includes "the article is not based primarily on such sources".

Articles need to be predominantly based on a range reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject, so when you see articles like this one on niche political groups where pre-cleanup it was almost entirely sourced from their own website it's typically a red flag (no pun intended) that not only is the group non-notable but there are likely COI/WP:NOTHERE issues too (which I think may play into both the previous AfD and the sudden attempt to restore content that is inappropriate). Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced by the detailed arguments presented by Rambling Rambler and concur that a Redirect can be a good solution. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are seemingly notable productions associated with them, but I couldn't find sources to evidence it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, did you try searching anything in the Japanese language? I don't know the company but despite the poor sourcing, it appears to be notable if the article is correct Andre🚐 20:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, more opinions needed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And improve with existing sources, most of them in Jp, some on the corresponding JaWP article. Has a search in Jp been performed? If so, what is the issue? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the improvements. It should also be noted that, due to the time period in which the company operated, and due to the lack of contemporary (to that time) Japanese magazines, newspapers, and other possible references being available online, it is likely there are many references that are not accessible to anyone outside of Japan, and those references would even be difficult to find within Japan outside of some specialized libraries or buried in a used book store. Given the high profile of many of their works (especially the three Takahashi series), it's extremely likely those sources exist despite our being unable to access them from 10,000 miles away. I'm still looking for more, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve with JP sources. Andre🚐 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Afro Celt Sound System. asilvering (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

After checking google I am unable to find proper citations, other than album and CD listing sites, so in my opinion this one does not meet the notability guidelines. Drushrush (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Drushrush (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afro Celt Sound System. This band has a long history and some other albums that achieved notability, but this one seems to have been ignored by the music media when released. The AllMusic review already cited is a reliable source and helps a bit, but doesn't often much fodder for analysis. Today the album is only visible in typical retail and streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Afro Celt Sound System.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Similar case to Elijeu De Jesus Belo Soares, which was deleted here. Having caps is no longer a 'free pass' and Salvador Carlos needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC to be kept. The best that I can find is ASEAN Football, which mentions him once in a squad list, and Timor News Network, a Blogspot entry that mentions him twice in different squad lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the analysis by Spiderone. The fact a person at one point in time, in a galaxy far, far away, played soccer well does not automatically qualify them as notable. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, and I haven't found reliable sources that confirm her notability. فيصل (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, found these sources [2][3][4][5], perhaps there are more sources out there. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ednabrenze, and? All but one of these so-called 'sources' you just listed are essentially puffery outlets. The Gulf News mention is probably the only one that stands out, but even then its mention of Naila is brief and hardly notable. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, hardly any coverage in reliable sources or in regional news. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO, for lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎ (i.e., consensus against deletion but no consensus on whether to merge). No prejudice against a further merger discussion outside the AfD process. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Declined PROD. This article had no sources for the last seventeen years, but when declining the PROD, the declining user jammed three refs onto the first sentence of the article that do all mention online panels. One appears to be a research paper, which is fine for verification but does not establish notability. The others appear to be brief mentions of online panels in books about market research. I don't believe notability was clearly established by WP:REFBOMBING in this fashion, so here we are. It has not been proven that there is in depth coverage in reliable sources, I don't think we generally consider the <whatever> For Dummies series of books to really be something we should be basing encyclopedia content on, but that's ok because none of the content is actually based on it, it was just tacked on as a ref because a Google search showed that Online Surveys For Dummies contains the words "online panel" a few times. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first source is not a "research paper" it is an edited volume on the concept of "online panels" AKA a 500+ page book that is literally just about the article topic. The third source is not "brief" it has multiple pages discussing the pros and cons and methods of this kind of research. This appears to be a significant concept in marketing research, see here, here , here, here, dozens upon dozens more, etc. The prod said it had been unsourced for 17 years and therefore was clearly non notable which is nonsense. Also, in what world is refbombing adding three sources? My rationale for citing the less academic source is it provided a better explanation as to what the topic was and I didn't want to go jumping through hoops to find that in the edited volume to cite the first sentence. Probably not the best source but not unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on a merge, in any case that seems like one of many possible targets and a fairly arbitrary one - it doesn’t seem any closer linked to the focus group concept than many of the other marketing concepts discussed with it. There is a 500 page book about this and many many many articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book’s definition set out in its introduction is: “an online panel is a “form of access panel, defined in the international standard, ISO 20252 "Market, opinion and social research - Vocabulary and Service Requirements," as "a sample database of potential respondents who declare that they will cooperate for future data collection if selected" (International Organization for Standardization, 2012, p. 1). These panels sometimes include a very large number of people (often one million or more) who are sampled on numerous occasions and asked to complete a questionnaire for a myriad of generally unrelated studies. Originally, these panels were called discontinuous access panels […] Panel members can be re-sampled (and routinely are) to take part in another study with varying levels of frequency.” Not really a focus group since it involves many many more people while a focus group is small. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i’ll try to expand it to start class tomorrow so the article actually makes clear what this is (and also because I feel obligated to put my money where my mouth is after writing so many words) PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are now words PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pretty well known concept in the field of research. Taking a quick look at the google scholar results, besides the sources identified by PARAKANYAA, this research paper discussing online panels in marketing research, this research paper that talks about how online panels might have specific biases and this research paper talks about alternative ways to setup online panels to provide better quality data. I also don't understand the rationale of the nom, not having sources for a long period of time has nothing to do with the topics current notability and the refbombing allegations also appear to be exaggerated, all three of the references added are relevant and show that the topic has been written about in depth. Sohom (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Focus group. Searching on scholar shows that "Online panel" and "Focus group" are closely linked concepts [6]. It makes sense to cover them in the same article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:58, 31 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!} 22:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more before potentially closing as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Focus group - per Hemiauchenia. These are a thing, but they are not really an independent thing. Focus group is where readers will find the related informatio that supplies the context for the online panel. This should be treated there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy The problem with that is that this isn't a focus group. It is a form of access panel, according to all of the sources that talk about it. If we're going to merge it anywhere it should be there but that article is worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Focus group is the correct target. I think access panel should also be merged or redirected there. Neither makes much sense as a subject divorced from the parent subject of a focus group. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It being merged would just make the page worse. It is not the parent subject, they're related subjects but it is not the "parent". It makes more sense for it to be deleted than merged there, as it has no clear space in that article. There is a several hundred page book and several journal articles delineating the specifics of this concept. I think that is enough to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it was clear that a page that already has a heading "Types" and a heading "Online focus groups" clearly has a place for this. As for space, that page has about 3,000 words of prose - half of the lowest threshold for WP:SIZERULE. So there is no problem with space. The reader is better served by having this aspect of focus group engineering treated in situ, rather than hived off to a page where there is little notable to say. Detailed methodology is not encyclopaedic information per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not online focus groups, though. We have an article on online focus groups already - which is what that section is on. I meant it doesn't have the space as in contextually, without it being made more confusing. There's plenty of notable encyclopedic stuff to say regarding its prevalence, usage, history, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not online focus groups. Yes. Thus merge and not redirect. All other comments pertain. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Access panel is a Redirect (it should appear as a green link) so it isn't a suitable target page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think these topics are closely related enough to warrant merging. Almost all sources discuss them independently - while there are many hits for them together that's because they're two very widely used polling methods so they show up in a lot of academic studies, obviously. These are not the same thing, their only commonality is being "people you ask the opinion of" which is like, a poll. Focus group is usually a handful of people this is usually tens or hundreds of thousands. They are also established individual things (like, the individual panels) in a way that has no analogy in focus groups. By your logic, we should upmerge all of them including focus group to opinion poll. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This list has a finite boundary, which is a good thing, but I cannot see that this is a notable intersection. From that perspective I feel it fails WP:NLIST. At the very least it deserves the community's scrutiny. I feel the History section is valid. this, if the outcome is to delete I feel this shoudl be migrated, probably précised, in to a new article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Schools, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are Poor, unreliable, bare url links and page not found links. Page has no indepth coverage on the list of Engineering colleges and fails general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging the History section elsewhere?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe merge the history section into History_of_education_in_the_Indian_subcontinent#Engineering? There's not much detail there at the moment. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not agree with Merging anything from History because the large portion of it is unsourced and the few that are sourced (4 sources), 1 is a bare url link, 2 is a primary website of the college itself and not secondary independent source. 3 is also primary and just a notification signed by the Registrar and does not cover the larger paragraph on the wiki page. Source is about the name change of institution and that is it. Source 4 has no such backing on page that "In 1947 when India became independent, there were 36 institutions for first-degree engineering education, with an annual intake of about 2500 students." Page 199 to 201 of the source from 1962, there is just a table of some engineering and technology institutes teaching various subjects and very likely the wikieditor probably just counted the table to 36 and wrongly called it total number of engineering colleges in and the source says that from these colleges maybe 2500 students took engineering subjects. Source and the comment on the page do not match. RangersRus (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BIO. The article is unreferenced, and all I can find is a number of his own essays (e.g. this New York Times satirical piece from 2000, this Chicago Tribune piece from 1993, and one Huffington Post article in 2015) and some promotional pages covering his more recent gigs and appearances. His IMDb page shows no significant roles or performances, so WP:ENTERTAINER isn't met either. No real coverage of any of his published books. GhostOfNoMeme 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMeme 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unreferenced WP:BLP, which normally would rate a speedy deletion. The problem with what I see online is they are tangential to him (a couple of political new stories where he’s mentioned briefly), books and essays by him - but not about him, and unreliable sources. That results in a situation where there is not significant coverage of him. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't prove this is copyvio, since this article was created in 2006, but it's basically identical to his author blurb (see eg on this amazon listing: [7]). -- asilvering (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! Looking through the Wayback archives for his book listings, I noticed one change (the addition of his marriage) appeared in his Amazon bio first, and only later was added to this article. So I'd be inclined to suspect his Amazon author blurb may be the sole source of this article, copied wholesale – especially considering the article is completely unreferenced. But unfortunately Wayback archives are incomplete and don't seem to extend earlier than 2010 for any of his books that I checked, nor for his Amazon author listing, so I can't say for certain. I'd be very curious to compare the earlier ~2006/7 versions of this article with his Amazon bio, but I can't seem to do that via the available archives. GhostOfNoMan 17:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although, to be fair, it could be that his Amazon bio is simply copied from this article; but if that were true, I wouldn't expect to have found additions (like where he lives with his wife) that appear in his Amazon bio before appearing in this article. I tried again to find earlier Wayback archives that I could link here to firmly establish this as a wholesale copyvio, but I don't think any early archives exist. So maybe I'm wrong and instead the Amazon bio is copied from here, and the addition of "David Martin lives in Ottawa, Ontario with his wife Cheryl" is the only copy that happened from Amazon→Wikipedia. GhostOfNoMan 23:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. It looks like the consensus is, in this case, that the subject is notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Like pretty much every student organization or team, this WP:ROTM high school band is not notable and should not have a standalone article: fails WP:CLUB and WP:NMUSIC. Sources are non-independent, very brief mentions, or routine local news similar (WP:AUD) to that my own high school's band received. Most content is fluff about personnel and awards received by countless competitive youth groups (11th place finalist, regional champion, etc). There are a lot of student contests and appearances out there like these every year, and even winning multiple times is not basis for an article. May be redirected to Plymouth-Canton Educational Park#Marching band.

I don't believe there are any other individual high school band articles, and similar AFDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pequannock Township Marching Band (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnstable High School Marching Band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reeths-Puffer Marching Band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Run Marching Wildcat Band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stafford High School Tribe of Pride Marching Band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redlands Terrier Marching Band Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Michigan. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I see this source, I am convinced that this band is notable. The edit history of the article in question is also interesting. The Banner talk 00:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A four-sentence blurb in the local paper? That's not substantive and is precisely what WP:AUD is for. Newspapers regularly cover local schools' football, basketball, band, academic, and other accomplishments, but we should not have separate articles for every one of those student organizations because they've won something. This should be summarized in the main article, not a separate respository for cruft like the staff (WP:RFCSCHOOLADMIN) and events attended. Reywas92^Talk 01:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBAND#9. They won a prestigious band competition in 1990, 1991, and 1999. Re: regional media, major media treatment in:

Indy Star [8]
Detroit Free Press [9]

On another (admittedly slightly WP:ILIKEIT) note, this little school has had an amazing run of success with its marching band. I think we would barely bat an eye at keeping an article about a football team with three national championships. Its article has survived two previous AfD's. What's the sudden urgency to call this article "cruft" and remove it? Oblivy (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd and utterly overly broad to claim NBAND with that. Dozens of schools have won and placed in this competition and dozens more have won other band competitions. This should be recognized in the school's article, not as a standalone article for the student group.

The Indy Star did not actually cover this: as you can see with "Observer life" in the top left, it was covered by a reporter of the local Michigan site Observer (hosted by Hometown Life), and it was not actually published in the Star but https://www.hometownlife.com/story/life/community/observer/2015/07/23/go-blue-cep-band-kellogg-park-plymouth/30579317/ there]. The second link is also the local Canton Observer, not the larger but also local Detroit Free Press, and in the "Local news" page, where they also cover the high school drag race team, an automotive detailing company, and high school football, volleyball, and soccer teams.

I think we would barely bat an eye at keeping an article about a football team with three national championships. This is not true, we do not keep articles about high school football teams, because every school has a team, many have won championships, and student teams and groups should be covered in the school's article. Yet Baltimore City College football, which dates to the 1800s and has notable alumni, appears to be the only one.

Indeed, articles written by a member of the student group, with lists of "legendary" and "preeminent" staff and flowery language, are crufty and should be avoided. Reywas92^Talk 20:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit Free Press article I was referring to is this [10]. There's a 2007 article which is a broken link. Sorry about that.Regarding the IndyStar article are we really at the point of picking nits over where it was "actually" published? The point is that they get a variety of press coverage, and most of it reflects their multiple national wins (which kind of blunts your point about other bands winning the competition).If you're not happy about the language used, then the article should be improved per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:ATD. Oblivy (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't temporary. They've won multiple national championships. Those championships haven't disappeared since the last AfD in 2017. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't notable in the first place. Many schools have won multiple championships for this particular event as well as others (USBands, Western Band Association, Tournament of Bands). Countless more championships for other student activities. That doesn't mean they should have articles. Reywas92^Talk 01:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, WP:BAND (#9). Yes, it does. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The majority of references are either non-independent, court documents, or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS predominantly in local news. No substantive change from the previous 2009 AfD ending in deletion. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage to establish notability. GhostOfNoMan 21:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMan 21:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMan 21:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD notes the author as Adamvanhoforjudge (obvious COI). This time, it's Akronbrownsfan – the very same user who created the now-deleted Midwest Law Blog article, a blog that was run by Adam VanHo (as you can see via this Wayback archive which after a few seconds redirects to http://www.vanholaw.com/blog.aspx), and with zero other contributions. Some other obvious COI edits in the article's history, too (such as 330akron, Ohiodad, Akron44308 – accounts that pop up to edit his article once and disappear). GhostOfNoMan 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ohio and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked for sources for this individual but can only find mentions in passing which confirm the basic facts of his legal career and him being an unsuccessful election candidate, so nothing notable enough for a standalone article. Valenciano (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam VanHo is a noted attorney with a long and distinguished career. Adam's extensive legal work and history of quality legal representation is testified to by his numerous appearances in a variety of media outlets. His legal cases have been written about in the New York Times. There is no basis for deleting this article. It has existed since 2010. This attempt to have it removed is an absurdity -- and so is peppering the request with references to arbitrary Wikipedia policies instead of explaining in simple terms why the article is not fit for Wikipedia. Plainly obscurantist behavior. Adam VanHo has thousands of Google hits -- you are invited to peruse his many positive reviews and testimonials from clients. This is not some backwater Saul Goodman! To end, I would also describe your cynical attempt to single out the names of article contributors as downright offensive. It would seem to me that you are implying these accounts are suspect because their names are related to Ohio, the state in which Adam VanHo practises. You would not, I suspect, give a hoot if they were named YankeesFan or DallasCowboys99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeOmen (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet GhostOfNoMan 01:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly encourage you to read WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. I am not engaging in "obscurantism" by referencing basic policies. Notability is a core policy of Wikipedia. If you want the article to remain, you need to be making some attempt to demonstrate its notability.

Adam VanHo has thousands of Google hits – irrelevant, see WP:GOOGLEHITS.

It has existed since 2010. – irrelevant, see WP:LONGTIME.

As for This is not some backwater Saul Goodman! I never made any such aspersion. VanHo may well be a successful and accomplished lawyer, but that doesn't mean he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm not attacking his character by saying he doesn't satisfy WP:BASIC.

And as for labelling my cynical attempt to single out the names of article contributors as downright offensive. ... I'm not trying to offend anybody, I'm highlighting the fact that this article has a suspicious pattern of editing that suggests conflicts of interest. At least three accounts clearly local to Ohio just happen to pop up over the years and make single edits only to this one article. It's not an argument for deletion per se, it's simply an eyebrow-raising observation worth noting.

You are invited to peruse his many positive reviews and testimonials from clients. – I shan't be doing that, thanks. GhostOfNoMan 00:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable lawyer as far as I can tell Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was ready to defend the attorney, but other than one case that made The New York Times in 2022, and he has been doing a good job, but really hasn’t done anything for the bar or civics that would allow him to pass my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that this article should probably be WP:SALTed to prevent recreation given that this article was already recreated after an AfD by an SPA once before. The SPA also has already taken up a new (since-blocked) sock over the course of this discussion, so it's very possible that another attempt will happen in the future. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it looks like there's a very strong likelihood it'll be recreated soon after. Two blocked socks have already joined this AfD (one struck, one removed by an admin) which gives me the impression that this won't be the end of it... GhostOfNoMan 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Sir MemeGod  13:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, unelected candidates for political office don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but the article is failing to reliably source that he had any serious claim to preexisting notability as a lawyer, since that work is referenced to a mixture of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him. I don't know if I agree that it would need to be salted to prevent recreation — the recreation after deletion was in 2009, so it's not entirely clear that there's an imminent danger of recreation now. We can salt if that proves necessary, and I don't necessarily object to immediately salting from this discussion if other people feel more strongly than I do that salting would be needed. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT. No appearance in multiple reliable sources. Aside from h above, there are many unsourced, promotional contents. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Entertainment, and China. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single interview in Vogue and citations to three blogs doesn’t make significant coverage. If you find something more useful, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here is the only good source I found:
1. Mankani, Sneha (2020-08-18). "6 dancers on how their craft empowers them to find strength during crisis". Vogue. Archived from the original on 2020-10-23. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "The first routine Elina Hsiung choreographed was at age nine, to the chart-topping Backstreet Boys song ‘Larger Than Life’. ... Hsiung teaches at a dance studio in Manhattan whenever she’s not working on workshops and collaborations in Mumbai. Trained in ballet, contemporary, jazz, hip-hop and modern, her style is versatile and natural. Her recently launched e-book In My Shoes is almost an instructional manual on how to make it as a dancer in New York. Hsiung attributes her toughness to dance. It gives her the fortitude to train for 10 or more hours a day (she tops this up with cardio and body conditioning at the gym) and the mental capacity to learn routines and adapt techniques in minutes, as well as tackle auditions and rejections. [quote]"
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Elina Hsiung to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to be a WP:UPE. I draftified it last week, but the same editor re-created it at Draft:Abdul Hannan (Pakistani singer) which I also draftified and despite my request for them to submit draft for review. New users should ideally follow the WP:AFC procedure if they believe the BLP meets WP:N, but this wasn't done.

The draft has now been reverted to the main namespace. After reviewing this BLP, I don't think it meets the criteria for either WP:NSINGER or GNG. The creator of the BLP is actively participating in AFD discussions, even though they are relatively new to WP which suggests they are WP:BE. And I wouldn't be surprised if some IPs vote to keep this BLP in an effort to influence the outcome.

Additionally, the creator of this BLP brought their own creation to AFD to ensure it was rescued through the AfD process and the BLP remains - a practice commonly used by UPEs and socks. Also, Alon9393 , the creator had previously been warned by Davey2010 not to canvass editors in AFDs, but it appears Alon9393 have no intention of stopping. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added {{undisclosed paid}}, largely to see how Alon9393 reacts to it (do they continue to show signs of being a UPE?)I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I dream of horses, Saqib I declared myself unable to respond to these accusations. I am not a paying user. I voluntarily collaborated here. If you see me editing the article, it is because I want it to maintain the required relevance and notoriety and comply with the standards of musical notability. I have also collaborated on various articles such as Richard Jones (British diplomat), Hannah Bat Shahar, Cyprus–Saudi Arabia relations, Juancho De la Espriella, Ercan Aydogmus, Tiger Tyson. All those articles with serious deficiencies and lacks of notable sources. Now the point is about Abdul Hannan's article, I absolutely leave this to the community so as not to misinterpret or, as they say, have influence in this vote, in this debate consensus. Thank you Alon9393 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rolling Stone India is a brief mention and most of Pakistani sources briefly mention him or are tabloid-style stories without any proper byline. WP:SIGCOV requires high quality references with proper bylines. His songs has been included on Spotify charts but they doesn't meet WP:GOODCHARTS criteria. An enforced AFC review is another option as this is likely edited for payment. 202.47.50.250 (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reviewing all the sources, it's clear they do not support notability under either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The WP:SIGCOV of the subject is in unreliable sources (non-bylined articles in sources considered dodgy per WP:RSN), and what coverage the subject has had in reliable sources is not WP:SIGCOV. (FWIW, I moved this page back to mainspace per creator request under WP:DRAFTOBJECT and not because I thought it was a notable topic.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this BLP Alon9393 is now blocked and wanted the BLP deleted as well. However, I believe the AFD process should be allowed to run it course. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Kottankulangara Devi Temple. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is not large enough to warrant a split. A section on this topic already exists in the main article, and the current size of this article (6,616 bytes including markup) does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:SIZERULE. Additionally, the title is misleading, as the ritual in question is actually called Chamayavilakku, which is just one of several events held during the Kottankulangara Festival. The Doom Patrol (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Hinduism, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kottankulangara Devi Temple. agree with Nominator.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep and no support for deletion proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no evidence of a set definition of an "unfair" practice, and this article makes heavy use of WP:SYNTH to combine various definitions from different places. However, unlike "fraud" which has a clear and agreed-upon definition, pretty much anyone can call anything an unfair business practice. I suggest it be deleted due to aforementioned SYNTH, as well as WP:NOTDICTIONARY concerns. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while there might not be a set definition of what unfair business practices are, or rather what these are will vary by country/organizations/schools of thought, the broad concept of unfair business practices clearly is notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: without sourcing to prove that it is "clearly" notable, this is just WP:SOURCESEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a concept that does have a lot of history, and it's not as unbounded as the nomination makes it seem. For example:

EU Directive 93/13/EE, then EC 2017/2394, protect against unfair contract terms, sometimes described as "Unfair Business-to-Consumer Business Practices" [11]. Here's an announcement last week about enforcement, which talks about "unfair commercial practices" a synonym.
UK has had unfair contract terms laws for about 50 years or more. Other commonwealth jurisdictions, same.

However this article sweeps much more broadly, and doesn't just deal with issues of unfair contract terms but extends to a variety of business practices. And it's U.S. based. And it seems to be quite original-researchy. I don't like TNT but that might be the option here. Is there a possible merge/redirect target? Oblivy (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic has been discussed in depth in multiple reliable sources. For example:

Tamara M Buckwold, Statutory Regulation of Unfair Business Practices in Saskatchewan: Possibilities and Pitfalls, 1999 62-1 Saskatchewan Law Review 45, 1999 CanLIIDocs 624, <https://canlii.ca/t/7n2zt>, [12]
Heitler, George. “Antitrust, Restraint of Trade, and Unfair Business Practices: Impact on Physicians.” The Journal of legal medicine (Chicago. 1979) 3.3 (1982): 443–460.
Jakouloff, Karim. “Social organisations can be guilty of unfair business practices.” Revue de l’Union européenne 580 (2014): 436–440.

Two other examples:

Business Torts Reporter (a newsletter for lawyers) had a recurring column called

“Unfair Business Practices.” For example, Business Torts Reporter 24.6 (2012): 166-

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission incorporated the term into its mission statements in the late 1990s, e.g., Goal 1: Prevent fraud, deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace [13].

Buckwold is discussing a term called an "unfair practice" in the statute, defined as:
5. It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in a transaction or proposed transaction involving goods or services, to: (a) do or say anything, or fail to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled; (b) make a false claim; (c) take advantage of a consumer if the person knows or should reasonably be expected to know that the consumer: (i) is not in a position to protect his or her own interests; or (ii) is not reasonably able to understand the nature of the transaction or proposed transaction. That seems like a workable scope.Buckwold notes that Canadian provinces have laws headed 'Unfair Trade Practices Act" or "Trade Practices Act" or "Business Practices Act". This is a common issue in the project, which can be addressed by putting alternate terms at the top. There's been a shift towards Unfair Commercial Practices in recent years but I think the meaning is the same. Oblivy (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, conditionally. It’s not the most common legal term of art, but based upon what’s been found and noted above, it’s got significant coverage. My opinion that WP: HEY is met, is conditioned on someone adding the sources found to the article and making sense of it. In the alternate, if nobody volunteered to work on it, userfy it to my space. I’m not sure if I can work on this one this week. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and does not violate NOT. A topic should not be deleted merely because its definition is unclear or disputed. If we deleted articles on such grounds we would have to delete our articles on law, justice, crime, marriage and sin to begin with, because there is no worldwide agreement about what they actually consist of. For the avoidance of doubt, an article should not be deleted merely because it needs to be disambiguated or split. James500 (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this and to @Bearian as well. I'm encouraged by the replies although I find the mention of Justice a bit triggering because it attracts diverse opinions (I'm thinking of a particular divine justice editor...). I'll see if I can make time over the next few days for a first swipe at this and will report back if I do. Oblivy (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have substantially rewritten the article. It's much narrower in scope (maybe too narrow?). It needs a narrative rather than just country-by-country -- I have ideas on what's needed but not enough time to do it, so any helping hand would be great. Oblivy (talk) 09:08, 19 September 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!} 18:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A longstanding WP:SPA article about a company which seems to have operated from 2011 to around 2020. An article in the Spanish Wikipedia was recently deleted ("Entre S/REL y promocional + empresa desaparecida"). There are claims within the article, but mainly supported by links to generic websites, and it seems unlikely that a methodology dating from 2000 can indicate notability for a firm founded in 2011. A brief interview with the company founder can be found (enerTIC, 4 December 2015), but I don't see that or anything else that I can identify as sufficient to demonstrate that this company attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Spain. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - company doesn't seem close to clearing WP:NCORP. Brandon (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The claim to notability, starting 2 matches each in a Brazilian regional tournament and the third tier of Greek football (as well as 8 additional substitutions on), is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, Greece, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a database of every footballer ever. Playing single-figures totals in the third tier state football in Brazil, second tier in Greece and third in Japan, being untraceable from the age of 25, is not WP:GNG. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The claim to notability, playing 739 minutes in the second Japanese league, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The claim to notability, playing 15 matches in South Korea 15 years ago, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is an unsourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. And his article in the Korean Wikipedia is a stub with little to no WP:RS. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination and Clara, could not find any significant coverage. Sir MemeGod  13:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A non-notable individual: the topic does not even approach WP:GNG. Not every spawn of a medieval ruler's loins is encyclopedically notable. The only thing said in RS about this woman is that she existed. To my knowledge, no historian has ever put together two sentences about her. The references cited do not mention her. Surtsicna (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Royalty and nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina ~~and Yugoslavia~~. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing insufficient. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed WP:SIGCOV - one source, a family tree, is in passing and the other is unreadable. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Portland, Oregon mayoral election. with the history preserved until November as there's no BLP reason not to. I have protected the redirect. Star Mississippi 13:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable political candidate and businessman. This page was previously created and deleted under a different name. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paging @Bearian: and @SportingFlyer:, who voted in the last deletion discussion for Keith Wilson. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Head of a non-notable business, with only coverage related to his election candidacy [14], would not pass NPOL and doesn't seem to meet other notabilty. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Thanks for the ping. There are zero independent sources about this CEO and alleged philanthropist. There is a single source about his role, on his own company’s website. There are no citations at all for his philanthropy. The few sources that refer tangentially to him as a business owner are really about how he ran unsuccessfully for mayor, which according to precedent we already decided rates at best a redirect. The re-creation of this article is pretty blatant spam. When a page that was created and dented after an AfD, we must stop its recreation ever again. If we don’t do it, then we need a community wide response about changing the consensus. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Transportation, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Portland, Oregon mayoral election. Per Bearian. If he wins in November, we can reassess. Bkissin (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Clearly fails WP:NPOL and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian, and redirect to the election page. Jamedeus (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian , fails WP:NPOV and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to List of fictional rodents#Animation. History is there to merge any missing Star Mississippi 13:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A large majority of the list is completely unreferenced, a vast majority of the "notes" are unencyclopedic. May also fail Wikipedia:Listcruft. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Animal. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A redirect back to List of fictional rodents would be fine, per WP:ATD and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fictional rodents#Animation - The only reason this got so long that a split was necessary to begin with is because no attempt was being made to stick to any kind of criteria to limit it only to notable examples, on either this or the parent list. Remove the copious amounts of non-notable and dubious examples and condense the multiple entries that come from the same topic (i.e., have one entry for groups like The Chipmunks rather than listing them individually as separate entries), and it would fit neatly into the main list without the need for a split. This spinout list is very poorly sourced, so I'm not going to formally advocate for a Merge, but Redirecting will preserve the history here. Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly fancruft and listcruft. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and fancrufty split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Conyo14 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge missing blue-linked entries to List of fictional rodents: I think this split is not necessary, a trimmed version would fit into the parent list size-wise. But whatever happened to WP:Alternative to deletion? List of fictional rodents could also use improvements, but is clearly useful for navigation in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV. And a number of notable entries are present here but not at List of fictional rodents. So simple deletion or redirection would hurt the value of the parent list for navigation and be detrimental to the project, a case of WP:BATHWATER. Daranios (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged uncited for 15 years and does not exist on Turkish Vikipedi. If it is notable maybe some competitors or former competitors could cite this? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: I think relevant trwiki article is this: tr:Ulusal Bilim Olimpiyatları Tehonk (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have linked Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are propably enough sources. But in Turkish, unfortunatly. Luhanopi (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources in the Turkish article are Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to cite Turkish sources that would be great Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 30 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!} 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 7 September 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, Shadow311 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No encyclopedic relevance or sources demonstrating the slightest of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article, based on only one source, has no reason to exist. The concept of "democratic liberalism" is quite obscure and the infos here, if deemed relevant for the encyclopedia (I have several doubts), could be moved to Liberalism. While it is true that at the beginning liberalism was not necessarily liberal, in the 21st century liberalism, as well as other mainstream ideology, is quintessentially democratic. More generally, there is no need for a distinct article on the supposed subject of "democratic liberalism". At best, "Democratic liberalism" should become a redirect to Liberalism. --Checco (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for deletion, as per Checco's explanation above.-- Autospark (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is another article based almost exclusively on a single source, which is basically original research. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a really bad dictionary definition with a single source, that doesn't even use the term. Really appears to be something someone made up one day. Canterbury Tail talk 12:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to List of federal political scandals in the United States. Valid arguments presented by both sides. But in the end, consensus is that this is a duplication of the proposed target at best, and a POVFORK at worst. No prejudice against a selective merge, if it doesn't violate UNDUE. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very sparse article with a strange criteria (why only recent presidents?) and quite frankly, is only substantive for Trump (where it's a list of people who worked under him who now consider him to be incompetent). No substantive content besides the list of scandalous Trump politicians, which are covered elsewhere. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand substantially further back in time, and provide some refined guidelines for what constitutes a "controversy". An "impeachments" section that does not mention the impeachment of Bill Clinton is lacking, to begin with. While there are periods that historians would deem the cutoff for "modern" presidencies, I would think that this would go at least as far back as Nixon, and possibly as far back as Kennedy. BD2412 T 02:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: For one definition, see Stephen Hess and James P. Pfiffner, Organizing the Presidency, Third Edition (2020), stating "The modern presidency began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his leadership of the United States through the Great Depression and World War II". BD2412 T 03:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I went ahead and expanded it back to Reagan since that was as far back as the Brookings analysis went on turnover by administration Superb Owl (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I chose 2 presidents from each party for starters to try and keep it balanced. I will not object if other editors want to expand it. Do not see any reason for deletion. Superb Owl (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NLIST. High Crimes and Controversy: Noteworthy Presidential Scandals, Presidential scandals throughout history, Among 160 years of presidential scandals, Trump stands alone; What Was the Biggest Political Scandal in American History? 7 Historians Make Their Picks. Given the scope of this topic, reasonable to apply WP:LISTCRIT to limit to particular era. There are some problems: not convinced that "recent" is useful since it dates immediately, splitting by centuries might be useful; also, the table skates close to WP:OR - what source identifies scandals using that typology? Nevertheless, these are content issues, not notability issues. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fine as long as only notable controversies are included. Dympies (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicated information that is found at List of federal political scandals in the United States. I don't think a redirect would be helpful. --Enos733 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, @Goldsztajn, @Dympies, does the presence of List of federal political scandals in the United States change your analysis? - Enos733 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the differences between the two. The List of federal political scandals in the United States is difficult to read, includes legislators who are not associated with presidents, and is impossible to compare across presidencies. That article also does not categorize scandals by type and excludes Criticism from former allies, excludes turnover comparison, and excludes family members category. Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest there are no differences - but the way List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents is presented (to me), is very confusing and there is no information about the "controversy" and does not address the very real content concerns raised by BD2412, Goldsztajn, and Dympies. Looking at the list in the article, I do not know what "Major criticism of the President" means - does that mean the individual listed expressed concerns about the president? Also, I should be able to know at a glance why Eric Lander was part of a Biden administration scandal. I was about to say this should be TNT'd, but then I found a much more comprehensive article already written. - Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive in some areas but not in others. There is a real lack of discussion of presidential scandals in Wikipedia. I think given the growing power of the presidency, that we need a more coherent article to summarize the performance of presidents along these lines that is not bogged down with a massive list of congressman and judges and others that are not part of the executive branch Superb Owl (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there is a need for an article substantively focused on the performance of presidential administrations in this area (not just general occurrences in other branches coinciding with the timing of a presidential administration), and that what constitutes a "scandal" or "controversy" should be well-defined for inclusion. The latter is something missing from this article, but readily fixable within its scope. BD2412 T 20:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl - the only consideration is reliable sourcing - our own perceptions of the changing status of the US Presidency can't inform this discussion. @Enos733 - thanks for the ping and drawing my attention to the other article. I'm looking at this purerly from a sourcing (ie notability) perspective. For this list, I find sourcing that satisfies this specific class, but which does not statisfy a general list of federal political scandals. Looking at the federal list, notwithstanding WP:NEXIST, I do not see sourcing present in that article which satisfies that specific class. Given the prominance in the sourcing assocated with Presidents, this list, at least on first glance, has a stronger founding in sourcing and thus a stronger claim for notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost duplicate of List of federal political scandals in the United States. We need only one article on this topic. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. This is a WP:COATRACK and unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Merging would be unnecessary since the content is a bit of a disaster, but regardless of the condition there's a policy basis for redirection. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States, per Dclemens1971. Bothsidesism has destroyed many once reliable sources, and forks about controversies have wrecked parts of Wikipedia. A controversy about email servers versus hundreds of crimes and scandals is what has gotten us into this fine ness. No thank you. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table tries to distinguish between scandals, indictments and felonies, unlike the List of federal political scandals in the United States. I reorganized based on the most serious first and removed Hillary Clinton (which was a borderline case that is not in the List of federal political scandals) Superb Owl (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between editors advocating Keep, Delete and Redirect. No one has mentioned this in the discussion but the article being discussed is very weighted towards the Trump administration and lighter on other administrations, does that impact the outcome participants are seeking?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to something like "Personnel scandals of President Donald Trump." The table can largely remain as a comparision to other recent presidents without worrying as much about where to stop adding the lists and redundancy with the other list of scandals. Trump takes up much of the focus of the article anyway. Superb Owl (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is a clear cut case of WP:COATRACK. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. "Recent U.S. Presidents" is arbitrary and will change, and thus fails WP:NLIST. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can live with a redirect. --Enos733 (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. now divided between editors arguing to Keep and those advocating a Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. The primary sticking point between the two camps is whether or not editors believe this article is a duplicate of the target article and a COATRACK and those editors who believe it is a valid standalone list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I remember there was a policy against making articles about "recent" things. Also virtually the entire thing is about Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSpectre (talk • contribs) 08:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid article Is la🏳️‍⚧ 10:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are still divided. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a clear case of WP:COATRACK. Almost all the prose is about Trump, with only the table covering the other presidents. Besides, the List of federal political scandals in the United States exists, so any information about presidents can be added to that article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Enos733. The current version is a WP:BLP nightmare, and I don't see much worth merging into List of federal political scandals in the United States. Listing names of people with "Major criticism of the President" is questionable (why would we list the names Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky instead of linking/describing the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal?). "Family members in major roles" never explains what the controversy was. And I don't think listing dozens of living people's names, in an "Ethics / scandals" column without further context, meets the letter or spirit of WP:BLP. From what I can see, anything worth including in List of federal political scandals in the United States is already better presented there. hinnk (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – "Recent" is absurdly vague. Controversies must be attributed in nominal articles (Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, etc..). If there is a new election for Donald Trump, simply separate by the number in the presidential order as disambiguation. Svartner (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bizarre WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK. We have dozens of articles covering "controversies of recent US presidents". No need to make up an arbitrary timeline to cover them together. No opposition to using some of this content in a different current/future article, of course, but you don't need consensus to do that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a scriptwriter and dramatist, and cannot find coverage to add. I have also looked at a lot of the references in the articles he is linked to, and cannot find him mentioned. I did find a mention of him being arrested in 2018, but this is not appropriate for the article per WP:BLPCRIME. I may be failing to find coverage in Hindi-language sources. No obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Film, Theatre, and India. Tacyarg (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Youtube and Imdb aren't RS, I can't find anything about this person. A doctor and a bunch of others come up in my searches, not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, nothing shows up on searching. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. I tried to search but could not find any secondary independent reliable source on the subject. Clearly fails notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I looked at all 8 accessible sources listed in the references. None of them mention Kensy. I also did a google search for "Baron von Echlin" and could not find any suitable sources. DrKay (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. DrKay (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page is translated from already existing german page Rainer Kensy von Echlin -- will the German page also be deleted? Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellycrak88 no, that would take a separate discussion at de-wiki. They consider notability somewhat differently than we do, so I'm not sure if they'd also delete it if it were nominated there. People translating articles from de-wiki to en-wiki run into this problem fairly often. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sources lack sufficient WP:DEPTH to justify an article, if anybody knows German, I suspect their article would probably also warrant a delete. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two reasons: 1) he’s not automatically notable, because since the 17th century, Barons not living in Scotland are not members of Parliament, and 2) there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources: either they are passing mentions or not independent of the subject. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, perhaps the hagiography should be amended to include his conviction to four years of prison for fraud and related crimes[15], as reported in quite a few media reports[16]. Fram (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Time may tell on this one, but current consensus is to keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and lacks coverage in independent third-party reliable sources. Ryandnes (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Andrew Ousley meets the notability requirements because the sources below show that he has received significant coverage in reliable, independent publications:

The New York Times: "How a Producer of Concerts in Crypts and Catacombs Spends His Sundays"

In this feature article, The New York Times profiles Andrew Ousley and his innovative approach to classical music. The piece provides in-depth coverage of his "Death of Classical" series, highlighting how he brings performances to crypts and catacombs. It discusses his impact on making classical music more accessible and engaging to modern audiences, underscoring his significance in the arts community.

Forbes: "From Crypts To Catacombs: This Entrepreneur Is Giving Classical Music A Radical Makeover"

This Forbes article offers a comprehensive look at Ousley's efforts to revitalize classical music by hosting concerts in unconventional venues. It delves into his entrepreneurial journey, detailing how he founded his company and developed unique concert experiences. The coverage emphasizes his innovative contributions to the music industry and his role in attracting new audiences to classical music.

Billboard: "As Concerts Return, Death of Classical Brings Beethoven to Life In a Cemetery After Dark"

In this piece, Billboard highlights Ousley's "Death of Classical" series and its significance during the return of live music performances. The article discusses a Beethoven concert held in Green-Wood Cemetery, showcasing how Ousley's creative vision provides immersive experiences. It underscores his influence on the live music scene and his adaptability in challenging times.

The New York Times: "Is Opera Dying? No, But This One Is Staged Among the Dead"

This article reports on Ousley's production of Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" staged in the catacombs of a cemetery. The New York Times provides significant coverage of the event, exploring how the unique setting enhances the opera's themes. The piece highlights Ousley's innovative approach to classical music presentation and his contribution to keeping the art form vibrant.

Associated Press: "Purcell opera performed in cemetery catacombs"

The Associated Press covers the unique performance of "Dido and Aeneas" in cemetery catacombs organized by Ousley. The article details the production's concept and execution, illustrating his role in creating groundbreaking musical events. This coverage by a major news outlet emphasizes his notability and the widespread interest in his work. Sirmallionborntolk (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last 3 barely even mention him. New York Times article is mostly an interview. A few sentences can be added to the Death of Classical page Ryandnes (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject looks notable and has enough news coverage such as Theguardian.com, NY times, Forbes, NY Times, Vulture etc.Mysecretgarden (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I don't think subject fails WP:ANYBIO, but I'm also not entirely convinced that he is intrinsically notable independent of his concert series. The NYT piece alone establishes that he does not lack coverage from "independent third-party reliable sources". However, it's a vapid puff-piece that borders on being a promo. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to The Judgment Day. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It fails notability policy. This article was forked from The Judgement Day, with emphasis on two of its members who have left the stable. However most of the content in this article is present in the parent article, the team is not notable outside of The Judgement Day. WikiLeon (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WikiLeon (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to create a redirect, but IPs just recreate the article over and over. 1, the article is just a copy-paste of Judgment Day. 2, the article didn't include anything about the team of Ripley and Priest, just a summarize of their individual careers and the work as Judgment Day. 3, Untils a fews weeks ago, there was no source using the Terror Twins name (besides one trivial mention, it was not used). 4, no sources highlighing the Terror Twins tag team. So, as I pointed many times, sources just focus around their work as singles wrestler or the bigger stable, not enough coverage to create an article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to The Judgment Day. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 07:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Judgment Day and Protect to prevent IP activity - I am behind the similar IP's to this one that put the redirect back twice supporting HHH. The time for protection should be a minimum of three months. 2001:8003:5130:2601:106C:8D59:789D:EA50 (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass GNG or WP:10YT. So far there's nothing here that couldn't be on their own articles, so perhaps we return to it if anything of consequence happens with them. — Czello ^(music) 07:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and does not need a redirect. It is just similar to those team names in Mixed Match Challenge (typical WWE stuff). --Mann Mann (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Judgment Day and Protect to prevent IP activity. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to Baker, a post office, and probably a rail spot, judging from the maps, but no sign of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Declined and rejected at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace by creator this clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Theroadislong (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Transportation, Websites, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search brings up their website, social media... What's now used for sourcing is primary. I don't see notability for this magazine. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. Additionally, no lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ~~Weak Keep~~ per the amount of fatalities, GNG errors if fully exposed with evidence will sway my vote into ~~Delete~~, article can be expanded upon still with reliable sources, if not it should be merged into A310 accidents and incidents, entry there needs to be heavily expanded upon. @Aviationwikiflight Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually avoid using the amount of casualties as a way to determine notability since it really isn't one. Someone could presume that an article might be notable with the amount of casualties but all articles should abide by the notability guidelines.

Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Most if not all of the news articles originated in the aftermath of the accident which makes most of them primary because, "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." To expand further, to qualify as a secondary source, the coverage would have to contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. None of what I find qualifies as such. In my opinion, there really isn't significant coverage since coverage never really expands outside of the plane suffering a runway excursion.

For the subject specific guideline, WP:EVENT, my argument is already in my nomination, but to quickly add, criterion #4 of WP:EVENTCRIT states that "Routine kinds of news events including accidents, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Per what I've stated above, nothing gives this accident additional enduring significance, even if tragic. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Delete per

"Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Most if not all of the news articles originated in the aftermath of the accident which makes most of them primary because, "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." To expand further, to qualify as a secondary source, the coverage would have to contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. None of what I find qualifies as such. In my opinion, there really isn't significant coverage since coverage never really expands outside of the plane suffering a runway excursion."

@Aviationwikiflight Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this can't be closed as a Soft Deletion as there is a previous AFD. But to participants, if your "vote" changes, please strike out your previous vote to avoid the confusion. Right now, I see three bolded votes from the same editor. There should only be one per person.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there are indeed no further reports of this incident (see WP:EVENTCRIT) after 2015, and secondary references are few or even nonexistent compared to other articles on similar topics (see ). Probably doesn't deserve its own article. Pygos (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable young player, fails WP:GNG, now playing in non-league and unlikely to be notable any time soon, if at all. Giant Snowman 07:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes they make it back to the league, most times not. On the face of whats on the article, there is little and certainly not notable on account of WP:BASIC, so delete. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Send to draft space, clearly not main space material. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify obviously and per Govvy Intrisit (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not wholly averse to draftify, but I don't see how that will help in this case. The subject is non notable. They may be notable one day, but is there any reason to believe that will be soon enough that the draft would not expire? If it will be deleted anyway, we might as well let it go now. A WP:REFUND would be available in the future if they became notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing has really changed since the last AFD - yes, he made a few sub appearances at the end of last season (totalling 217 minutes per Soccerway), but there remains no significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping Giant Snowman 07:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging those at last AFD - @Zoglophie, Anwegmann, and Svartner:. Giant Snowman 07:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage here to meet the WP:GNG, would also consider a SALT here as well. Let'srun (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Considering that the incubation period in draftspace was not respected. Svartner (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale and I'd also advocate for WP:SALTING if this continues after this Afd. zoglophie^•talk• 12:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT, not much more to say, other than this kind of behavior is really annoying. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete‎ per author request, which will be considered as endorsement of the views expressed in this discussion. ✗plicit 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources do not meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Rajasthan. GrabUp - Talk 06:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 06:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The sources are poor and promotional with interview of the subject promoting his company. There are no secondary independent reliable sources and I did not find any significant achievements noteworthy to satisfy notability about the subject role as businessman. RangersRus (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable business executive; sourcing in the article is for the business, related to funding and such. All I can bring up are PR or interview items [17]. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable ROTM business person; sources don't come even close to satisfying GNG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. There was no support for a proposed merge into Cryptocurrency, but that shouldn't stop any editor from adding sourced content to that page. Owen× ☎ 17:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability at minimum requires verifiability in reliable secondary sources of the existence of the article subject: a "controversy" (in cryptography or among cryptographers and professionals in crypto) per title. This was not discussed substantially at the first PROD.
After 3 years, the article has not improved -- there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources that verify the existence of a controversy. The Vice article in section 3 is the only source in the article that actually talks about such a controversy, but it is problematic: it quotes 3 people in online correspondence with no further links: one academic complains about the word "crypto", while another defends language usage generally; the third is a tech professional complaining about the word. It is providing 2 complaints (plus the author's) about the word, but not attempting to report a wider controversy, in academia or the tech professions or anywhere. The rest of the article -- dictionary definitions and all -- becomes WP:SYNTH if the existence of the subject is not firmly established.
There is an option to merge the Vice article into cryptocurrency, but I question whether any of the other quotes in the 3rd section could be due (here or anywhere). SamuelRiv (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Cryptocurrency, and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see evidence of a major "controversy", just a few people complaining. This doesn't rise to the level of notable for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does appear SYNTH. This could perhaps be solved with a disambiguation page for both terms, but nothing beyond that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: There do exist many naming controversies in academic fields, of various degrees of pettiness. What makes them notable is their extensive coverage in major secondary sources. One of my favorites (which my dad was amid and first told me about) (for which we don't have a separate article) is the black hole/trou noir dirty word controversy (think about it, and also remember that black holes have no hair). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article into cryptocurrency per WP:ATD. There is some significant WP:RS that talks about the shift in the meaning of crypto towards cryptocurrency, and that information should be kept on Wikipedia. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another idea: how about we move this article to crypto and then move the disambiguation page to crypto (disambiguation)? PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme no. The primary topic of "crypto" would be "cryptocurrency" or "cryptography" long before an article on the debate of the use of the prefix. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Playing 3 games in the Chinese Super League, as well as 18 more in China League Two, is a weak claim to notability. Sources are two squad listings in table format as well as one match report. As such the player fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 32 minutes in Slovakia’s highest league. Continued in the second tier after that. His name is common, so I searched in conjunction with his club names and came up very light. This, this and this are all just match reports. This is just a summary of who played in the junior squad in 2015. Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. By the way, the first three sources are match reports in news format, not like this one as an example on ESPN.1. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 14 matches in Albania’s highest league. Currently active in the semi-pro second tier; however, I am simply not able to find a single source with something resembling significant coverage. This routine/trivial mention was the best I could find. What do you think? Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I found were a few more transactional announcements (1, 2), but nothing substantial. Fails GNG and SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one as well. Per above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 80 minutes in Albania’s highest league. Continued in the semi-pro second tier after that. Searching for sources, I exclusively find databases and trivial mentions, as well as several unrelated namesakes. Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deleting all these articles of non-notable football players it taking a lot of time from productive editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:REDUNFORK of Kamen Rider Gavv. It only has 2 episodes as of now which fails WP:TVSPLIT for being WP:TOOSOON Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 episodes as of now, but the series is expected to run weekly for an entire year like every series in the Super Sentai/Kamen Rider franchise. Exukvera (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably draftify it for now. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How much episodes are needed so that it can be properly accepted as an article? 10? 20? The series is expected to have 40+ eps. Exukvera (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TVSPLIT it said at least 50 but I saw many list of episodes of animes. Listing 24 as minimum Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a few months this discussion will be pointless. All series in this franchise have a separate episode list because the main article would be too big with it. Some anime episode lists have 12 episodes or less, specially when there are multiple seasons with a separate article for each season. You can consider this as a list for another season in a 50+ yrs long show. Exukvera (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's WP:TOOSOON plus it has a separate article that had an "episode" section Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The episode section in the main article only has the titles. It would be too big with the titles and summaries and references for each ep. All Tokusatsu pages are made in a similar fashion. Exukvera (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll just WP:DRAFTIFY it for the moment until it reaches 24 episodes Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Exukvera (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exukvera, don't move an article being discussed at an AFD to Draft space. It won't stop this discussion. If you would like this article draftified, then cast a vote for "Draftify". But don't take action yourself on this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because no one except the nominator has expressed a "vote" on what should happen with this article. I had thought the nominator was arguing for Delete but now I can't tell if you are advocating Draftify. Please do not just discuss an article but cast your bolded vote so the consensus can be determined and this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a perfectly standard WP:SPLITLIST of episodes and it obviously will be expanded, as the show is currently running (now 4 episodes listed....). And please do not take pages to AfD unless you want them deleted or the considered outcome has been challenged. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. as there is a case made against the merger as an ATD Star Mississippi 02:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article does not distinguish Virtualization development from the concept of virtualization. It was recently changed from a redirect to an article by moving material from timeline of virtualization development, but unfortunately that material does not seem to make it at all clear what the subject matter of this article is intended to be. I would guess from the title it is the use of virtual machines for software development, or the development of virtual machines but I don't think either of these merit their own article at it is also not at all discussed in the article as it stands. It also appears to largely consist of WP:OR, and notability cannot be established since it's unclear what the article is about in the first place. I would propose it be merged into Virtualization but I don't think there's anything in the article worth moving at this time. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Virtualization. A taxonomy of virtualization technologies would benefit the main article. Tule-hog (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's anything worth merging - it duplicates material that's already better covered in Virtualization and Application virtualization (and the timeline section is somewhat misleading, as it's missing the first 25-odd years of history). Adam Sampson (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. The editors advocating Keeping this article put up some good arguments but there is a clear consensus to Delete it. If any editor wants to write a non-list article about this subject, I'd be happen to provide information included in this article temporarily. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, very limited discussion about importance of MPs being landlords among indepdent RSs, with the whole list just being primary sourced from the UK Parliament. WP:UNDUE. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:UNDUE SecretSpectre (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + keeping the list up to date will be a lot of work, as MPs and their properties come and go. Wire723 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is already met by the category: :List of Landlord MPs of the United Kingdom DimensionalFusion 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- Notability: This topic passes WP:LISTN (WP:NLIST). This guideline states "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  - There are multiple reliable sources discussing this group, naming many of those included in it, in this parliament and in previous ones (as far back as 2014, at least, up to 2024): Sky, Guardian, FT, BBC, Jacobin, Tribune, Yahoo Finance, Big Issue, Channel 4, New Statesman.
- This alone is sufficient reason to keep, but for completeness I'll address other arguments made above:
  - Primary sources: Given that notability is established by the above secondary reliable sources, the use of primary sources alone is not an argument for deletion. The primary sources in this article are used for verifiability, not notability.
    - These primary sources are suitable as, per WP:PRIMARY:
      - they are "reputably published", by UK Parliament
      - there is no interpretation of the sources; they are only used to make "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" (NB. per WP:CALC, "Routine calculations do not count as original research"..)
      - per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". This source, UK parliament’s register of members’ interests, is explicitly mentioned by name in coverage from at least the FT, Sky, Guardian.
  - Undue weight: As I understand it, this is part of the NPOV policy about the content of an article, not whether an article should exist or not. As above, notability is established by reliable sources. The "background" section of the article attempts to keep due weight between criticism of landlord MPs and the view that these criticisms are too simplistic, but I'd welcome any improvements on this.
  - Duplicates a category: WP:NOTDUPE states "Arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided."
Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A signifcant portion of RS coverage is just to do with the scandal involving Jas Athwal. I do not consider a few RS articles on some MPs being landlords to sufficently justify a a list on the subject. I mean there were a number of articles around the time of private gentlemen's only (until this year) clubs like the Garrick Club and the MPs who were memebers of them but that does not justify list creation in my opinion. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but generalise to an article: the topic of landlord MPs has indeed been raised in the past, but the list at present is a snapshot of the situation as at the most recent declarations of interests. (How often do they have to update? Annual declaration, or as circumstances change?) The links above show earlier figures. A useful article could assemble all those various figures from articles, while including the current list. I have more doubts about the category Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was added, unsourced, to a couple of items on my watchlist. I don't think it's a useful category, and I don't think it will be maintained. In both the category and the list there is what I see as a problem in including MPs who are renting out their own permanent home while relocating to their constituency or London, ie landlords of a single residential property, almost "amateur" landlords, with those who have a portfolio of properties "professional" landlords. This distinction is made visible in the list, but not in the category. The present list could be made more useful if it included data from past parliaments. The category cannot be justified unless a source (the register of interests) is added to each MP's page, and is then checked every time there is a new register to ensure that those who are no longer landlords are removed: unrealistic. A list can be more clearly identified as a snapshot in time. PamD 19:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. PamD 19:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @PamD; this is a fair rationale RE: the category and useful feedback on the article. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, the article has transient notability, and WP:NOTNEWS. Why? The article appears to have been created soon after this news story broke. Many MPs for hundreds of years have been property landlords, and they can't all have owned perfect properties; but now it's suddenly newsworthy. The article is titled "List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom", but that title does not qualify the inclusion criteria by timeframe - however, it lists sitting MPs, so to avoid WP:UNDUE, the article should be expanded to include former MPs who had a property portfolio, and I expect that if it is to be at all comprehensive, it would soon become unwieldy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, historically most MPs would have been country gentlemen, landowners and landlords of vast acreages and dozens of peasant hovels! If this list/article is to survive, it needs much clearer definition of its scope. PamD 12:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand for the reasons stated by Jonathan Deamer and by Redrose64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejakyo (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are we going to include every MP for the past hundreds of years? Every peer, MSP, Assembly member? What happens if an MP buys a property, that we aren't aware of, and therefore aren't included even if they are a landlord. I don't think this article will work. DotCoderr (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peers, MSPs, and MSs are not MPs Bejakyo (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could editors arguing for Delete rebut the Keep arguments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. It's also hard to justify having such a list, which seems to have arisen from one news event. Maintaining the list will also be difficult, and I can see it becoming out of date very soon.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DUPLICATE. Seems to just copy from Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and not to mention this will have to be updated regularly but given the note for the Labour MP who is the largest landlord, it seems to me to be a little WP:POV to me (as someone very much non-Labour). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E I think the duplication goes the other way, with the categorisations being an unsourced duplication of this article. The category is up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. PamD 21:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
seen as the category has been deleted following PamD's nomination, I believe it's now even more needed to keep this article Bejakyo (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:LISTN. Sir MemeGod  13:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename/generalise Supporting PamD's proposal, as this is an issue that has frequently received media coverage and commentary, this is likely the best thing to do with the info currently here. Seconding Bejayko above that the now-deleted category being a duplicate is a reason in favour of this. Iostn (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no purpose for this article, nor do I see other articles about MPs who are/were lobbyists, SPADs, media commentators or even traditional roles such as teachers, soldiers, manual jobs etc. Kalamikid (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments above for delete are far stronger than anything to keep, but it is possible that an article could be written. Bduke (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of MPs who are landlords may be notable, but attempting to keep a list that is accurate, up-to-date, clearly defined in scope and manageable, seems doomed to fail. What's there currently is just a duplication of the House of Commons Register, which is a pointless waste of time and effort. Write an article on the topic and link the register; job done. If being a landlord is a defining attribute of any particular MP, then that's a job for a category. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Odin (firmware flashing software)#Heimdall. ✗plicit 00:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Written somewhat promotionally. Also, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I suggest restoring the redirect that was there before it was replaced. Rusty 🐈 00:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Rusty 🐈 00:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. I think there are not enough Wikipedia-suitable sources for this article. An article on the proprietary implementation of the protocol (Odin) exists and is notable, we can restore the redirect back to there. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If redirected, where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original redirect was Odin (firmware flashing software)#Heimdall but that should be confirmed here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Odin (firmware flashing software)#Heimdall: as this software lacks WP:RS for a standalone article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. No point in a third relisting given the lack of recent participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
The quality was not improved in a decade or more
To generate discussion whether to try to improve those articles or go ahead and delete them.

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with IBM as part of brand and reputation section. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the commitment by IBM to this direction is real and notable. The article has sources, and while some updating might be appropriate that is not a reason to delete. Merging would not appropriate as this is different. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Runrig discography. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I could not find significant coverage of this single in reliable sources. Fenix Funeral Directors is a website for a funeral home, and the source is titled "Top 10 Runrig Songs For a Funeral". This article can be redirected to Runrig discography, where its chart information is recorded. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and Scotland. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Doing a BEFORE search is annoying here because the band's origin in the Isle of Skye is frequently mentioned, but this song doesn't appear to have been written about. Mach61 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Goodreg3 opposes for the reasons discussed on his talk page and this AfD discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out the recently added subsection regarding coverage of high profile controversy around the charting position of "Skye", which would indicate a degree of notability. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two Music Week articles are primary sources, so they don't establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What more do you seriously want? I have provided information on what was clearly a significant event at the time. On one hand, you point out "self published sources" as not being enough, and on the other, you are equally unhappy with published magazines. What is it you are exactly looking for? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, significant coverage of a song is something like a review, an analysis of its themes or structure, or a discussion of its role in popular culture. I listed some sources that I would consider significant on the talk page for An Ubhal as Àirde (The Highest Apple), which I did find to be a notable single by Runrig. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~For what it's worth, I tried and failed (at a level approaching WP:BEFORE) to find an independent description of this supposed controversy.~~ Finally was able to load the Music Week (some kind of geoblock I think). I agree the 19 January 1985 article certainly seems like significant coverage. The 26-1-85 issue is just recapping the 19-1 story and saying bad weather was delaying the investigation. Voorts why is this primary? Music Week doesn't mention being part of Gallup. I can't imagine it is/was based on the tone and third-person references in the articles, but maybe you have reasons. Oblivy (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, reporting on an evolving investigation makes it a primary source. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me to that essay. There seems to be a disconnect between a reporter writing as an eyewitness (see "investigative reports" and footnote a of the essay) and a reporter relying on primary sources generated elsewhere to write an article. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure you're right this article fits the situation described in the essay let alone policy. I'm not seeing a second significant source in the article-for-deletion, so it may not matter. Oblivy (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring more to the breaking news example, as well as the portion above the examples, which discusses how writing about an event immediately after it occurs is based on the writers' interpretation of events and is thus a primary source. See, for example, this quote: ""Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described ..." voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Charting at 108th place isn't terribly notable. Outside of the charts listed, I don't see any reviews or analyses of the song. Could perhaps redirect to the album? Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing more than a promotional piece; fails GNG. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 20:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: Some coverage [18], [19], but it's celebrity gossip articles. Nothing really to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many sources here, including this, this, this, this, this and this. There's also this and this already in the article. Clearly passes GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable newspaper sources identified above which together show a pass of WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are reliable even if they are in english, and TODAY is a reliable source. Alon9393 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as Somebodyidkfkdt pointed out, subject has sufficient coverage to not warrant a WP:GNG-based deletion. Sir MemeGod  13:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of sigcov for musicians given in article, can't find on a quick google search. seefooddiet (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The GMA article is significant coverage. The others no, and nothing found on my own WP:BEFORE search (which is not just a "quick google search"). Will reconsider if further sources are identified. Oblivy (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried searching in .kr websites, mostly just track listings come up. This was about all else I could find [20], which is an interview and likely not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no real signs of notoriety here, it's mainly a concern of WP:BLP1E which is visible in the article header, which includes "mainly notable for being in a YouTube video" but nothing. Alon9393 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and per other users suggesting this is being used for promotion. Isha Sattar (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think others suggested promotion is happening; it's possible but not clear cut to me. seefooddiet (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GNG. Sir MemeGod  13:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the others, there are some sources which convince me of notability but they're not enough. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]