Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 18: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Added it as per the instructions for deletion (afd) policy
Line 75: Line 75:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Basil High School for Superiors}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Basil High School for Superiors}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Long (white supremacist)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Long (white supremacist)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizam's Carnatic campaigns (1725-27)}}

Revision as of 18:17, 18 June 2024

< June 17 June 19 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Figueiras

Juan Carlos Figueiras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems non-notable. I didn't PROD as I'm finding some stuff in Spanish. Only fair to allow people to debate this. — Iadmc♫talk  17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. Owen× ☎ 21:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Variable State

Variable State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails company notability and the awards don't appear sufficiently exceptional. One paragraph about the founding, which could be merged. IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsatisfactory basis for deletion.
The company is noteworthy and is currently featured prominently in its industry press, as recently as 7 days ago:
https://www.gameinformer.com/news/2024/06/09/polaris-is-a-co-op-pve-shooter-coming-to-pc-this-year-with-fully-destructible
https://www.gematsu.com/2024/06/sci-fi-co-op-shooter-polaris-announced-for-pc
https://www.pcgamesn.com/polaris/new-sci-fi-pve-shooter
The company has been nominated for numerous prestigious awards, including 3 British Academy Game Awards. It is the recipient of a BAFTA for Music and has won the Writers Guild award for Best Writing in a Video Game.
Furthermore, the company remains active, developing and releasing games, and is considerably more active than other similar game companies whose pages are not nominated for deletion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_Santo_(company)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Sparrow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Machine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simogo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messhof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Road
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Squid_(company)
My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion. Deleting this page would be wildly inconsistent with the practice of deleting and updating other video game company pages.
This request for deletion should be cancelled at the earliest opportunity. Badlandssummary (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"My concern is that this nomination for deletion is politically motivated rather than being a genuine suggestion" what a very serious accusation. Do you have any proof to back that up at all or are you just saying that? Procyon117 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only logical explanation for why this particular article has been singled out for deletion when numerous other video game company articles, related to video game studios of equivalent or lesser notoriety, have not been targeted in this way. Either apply a policy consistently or not at all. This deletion decision reflects very poorly on the instigator and those who defend it. It's an arbitrary, unliteral decision, and in the absence of a consistently-applied approach, feels like an attack. If you feel that accusation is serious, then so do I. It is incumbent on the deleter to explain why they are choosing a targeted attack and not a blanket policy. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided absolutely zero proof that this is "targeted" in any way, shape or form. We are humans, things are going to slip under the radar, and as others have said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Procyon117 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it helps to know, but e.g. Giant Sparrow and Giant Squid (company) appear to fail notability too and I or someone else might nominate them as well. IgelRM (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Badlandssummary (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you spamming the same thing three times? Procyon117 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, a mistake on the editor's part. This is my first experience dealing with a deletion request. And given the request seems so targeted and wildly inconsistent with the rules applied to other comparable and lesser-known game studios, I felt a sense of panic and my emotions were running hot. I don't understand why this article has been singled out in this way. If a rule is going to be applied consistently across all video game studios, then I would understand it, but if this particular article is going to be the target of a political action, that seems unjustified and against the spirit of this website. Badlandssummary (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've elected to remove them, as I assume them to be mistaken on the editor's part. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They seem like a perfectly fine studio and they even arguably have a piece of SIGCOV at GamesIndustry.biz, but notability is not inherited from a studio's games, therefore they fail WP:NCORP at the moment even if their games are in fact notable. Badlandssummary appears to be an WP:SPA, so if they really are a member of the studio or closely associated with it, then I urge them to read the guidelines on WP:COI rather than embarrass themselves by insulting editors and making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, which will not prevent the article from being removed. Work with people to find notability, and if none can be found it probably doesn't belong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also add that notability is not temporary; once you are notable you remain that way, we are not going and deleting Square (video game company) because they are no longer making games. It's getting there that is the problem, and often people with conflict of interest totally ignore notability when making a page because they are simply there to publicize. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are numerous items of significant coverage. This assessment feels extremely weak, particularly if you directly compare the Variable State article to other equivalent articles, such as those I've cited in my response above. Why would I feel embarrassed? I've not insulted anyone. I've made fair and justified accusations based on the unilateral decision to target a specific article, rather than apply a blanket policy. You are embarrassing yourself by making unsubstituted accusations as to my identity, when you have no basis for doing so other than your own opinion. If my tone is urgent and anxious, it is because I am witnessing an obvious injustice here and am disappointed in the hypocritical and targeted actions of a few editors who are not acting in the spirit of this website and community.
    Regarding articles highlighting the noteworthiness of this studio, I would direct you to the following:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/what-to-play/virginia-review--the-x-files-meets-twin-peaks-in-a-remarkable-in/
    https://time.com/4498103/virginia-review-pc-xbox/
    https://www.gameinformer.com/games/virginia/b/playstation4/archive/2016/09/22/game-informer-virginia-review.aspx
    https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-22-virginia-review
    https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/289831?
    https://www.pcgamer.com/virginia-wins-the-writers-guild-of-great-britains-prize-for-best-game-writing/
    https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nominees-for-2017-independent-games-festival-award/1100-6446752/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csmZMNXWZrw
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb_IkGzFY1o
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-virginias-cinematic-editing-works
    https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/road-to-the-igf-variable-state-s-i-virginia-i- Badlandssummary (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are all discussing the video game, Virginia. Which already has an article here and is indisputably notable. We're talking about the studio, though, which none of those articles are specifically about.
    Saying a deletion nomination is based on politics with zero proof is not "fair and justified". Seriously, you'll want to stop the ad hominem insults claiming actions are "targeted" against you with no evidence whatsoever or you will definitely be blocked for incivility. Yes, there are plenty of spammy game studio articles on Wikipedia, that does not absolve your article from needing to be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My criticism of your argument is threefold:
    1) What good is any policy if it is not applied consistently and fairly? The subject of the article clearly passes a higher notoriety threshold than other examples I have given in this discussion, so why should it be singled out? Furthermore, its content is more widely sourced and more thoroughly cited than many of the other examples I have provided. As such, if this article is to be singled out, that implies an injustice, and a policy which is being exploited for partisan reasons. If you were a parking attendant who found a street full of cars with no parking tickets, would it be fair and reasonable for you to cherry pick specific cars to receive penalties? No, that'd be judged as prejudiced and irrational. It is similarly prejudicial to target this article on the basis of an infraction of policy when there are worse offenders elsewhere which are not receiving similar attention. Fairness is the cornerstone of justice.
    2) The accusation of ad hominem against me has no basis. My challenge to the editor who triggered this deletion process was to explain why this article had been singled out, when so many more articles fall far below the standard of content and citation in this article. Therefore, it is only reasonable to ask why the policy being used to support the deletion decision is being applied in a narrow and targeted manner, rather than consistently and fairly applied. It implies an agenda or political motive.
    3) The accusation of "incivility" is spurious in the extreme. If you claim my tone of my replies, which have most certainly not involved foul or threatening language, are of greater concern than the unilateral decision to delete an article which comprises many hours of hard work and which meets the standard met by other equivalent article, then I question your ethics. I recognise no incivility in my conduct, merely a justified distress at both the obliteration of my work, representing hours and days of my life, and the unjust way in which this process is being conducted.
    If this results in my being banned, then I am being excluded from a community which does not value evidence, fairness, or justice, and which wields its authority in a selective and inconsistent manner, in which case I shall perceive it as no slight. I am grateful my remarks here serve as my public testimony. I am not embarrassed by them. They have been made in good faith. Badlandssummary (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you did not read the linked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it explains in detail why your (1) and (2) argument and your entire claim of unfairness is false. Messhof, which you linked, is also probably non-notable. In that case it *should* be deleted, but nobody got around to it yet. However, the fact that yours did not slip past the radar does not mean the nominator was playing favorites. It's possible they did not even realize it was not notable as it was created 7 entire years ago when they may or may not have been there checking new pages. Some straight-up hoaxes have existed for 10+ years simply because nobody found them, it's very easy for stuff to slip past the radar sometimes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Although I realized that Messhof is judged differently as we have different policies for individual developers as we do companies; WP:NCORP is more stringent than WP:NARTIST, probably due to how common it is for companies to attempt to game the system.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But these game developer companies are just personal studios of creative professionals here, so there isn't really a difference for notability. The article with be the same if Burroughs and Kenny collectively are notable as creative professionals. IgelRM (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because other bad things exist doesn't mean we get to keep this bad thing. What political motivation are you even implying here? What political ideology or agenda is demonstrated in this article that would be targeted? What "community that doesn't value evidence" are you speaking out against? What the fuck are you even talking about? λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't realise that things can pass under the radar, and their arguments certainly aren't helping their case. Procyon117 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zx. Also, I feel like there is some WP:COI problem here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I reviewed this articles GAN (which, quite frankly, should have never even happened because of how poorly written it was), I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable, but that's a topic I personally believe should be kept out of GAN as it's not one of the criteria. This discussion further proves to me that this topic likely isn't notable if the article creator is resulting to personal attacks and accusations instead of actually demonstrating how this topic is worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia. λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but we should still evaluate the studio's notability independently which only Zx has really done so far. The political accusations are undue but I think the the creator is still acting in good faith overall. In any case, some WP:ATD would seem easily applicable given the established game articles. Maybe my nomination was partially because the article doesn't appear in a good state. The GamesIndustry.biz feature is significant (was hard to tell with all the sources about specific game development) and the Develop studio nomination might signify recurring coverage. I hope this in retrospect somewhat bold nomination helps clarify how "game studio biography"-like articles are evaluated. IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stated in my message that "I got the feeling that this topic wasn't notable." My stance on this companies notability was separately assessed. I'll agree with you on GamesIndustry.biz being significant, but one source isn't enough. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. Owen× ☎ 21:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch politicians

List of Dutch politicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too broad for a list per WP:SALAT. Category:Dutch politicians by century contains 1,395 articles (per PetScan), while many more would be notable under WP:NPOL. Without any further inclusion/exclusion criteria, this list is bound to be either unhelpfully long or a rather random subset of subjects qualifying. Tristan Surtel (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ under CSD:G11. The combination of absence of SIGCOV and a disruptive COI author rule out soft-deletion. Owen× ☎ 21:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eamon Herbst

Michael Eamon Herbst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business person. WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO are not met. The only coverage, which deals with the subject as a primary topic, is this interview piece in the regional Wexford People newspaper. And is a form of WP:INTERVIEW which doesn't contributed to notability. The only other independent coverage I can find are trivial passing mentions like this or this court proceeding. The other "references" in the article are not independent and/or do not support the text regardless. In many cases making NO MENTION WHATEVER of the subject. And representing a form of WP:REFBOMBing. These "references" certainly do not support a claim to notability. (Like this page from the Wicklow County Council website - which makes ZERO mention of the subject and cannot POSSIBLY be read as supporting the text it is placed alongside). The BLPSources and Peacock concerns, raised by Liz, were simply ignored and the tags removed. The other issues (PROMO/COI/PAID/etc) are so obvious and galling that I was initially tempted to consider SPEEDY or PROD. However, discussion and clear community consensus is probably required... Guliolopez (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Liz Houghton. Rationale for merge looks strong and no arguments have been presented to the contrary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mint Velvet

AfDs for this article:
Mint Velvet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable clothing brand. Most coverage discussing the brand is actually coverage of its founder, Liz Houghton. In a brief search I found only two detailed writeups: this piece in Vogue which reads like a press release, and this article indicating the brand was acquired by another company in 2019. What little content is here could easily be merged to Liz Houghton. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 Draftify‎ where a potential merger target can be identified, if needed. Star Mississippi 02:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New White Sox Stadium

New White Sox Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a good example of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is one proposal, but it is so early in the process that this article is not warranted. Angryapathy (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep They are still in negotiations with the state of Illinois on the proposal along with the new Chicago Bears stadium. That's why they are categorized under Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States. If nothing becomes of this proposal, then the category on the page changes to Category:Unbuilt stadiums in the United States. That's the whole purpose of these categories... Roberto221 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of a category doesn't mean any subject that falls under that category gets its own Wikipedia page. WP:N is paramount, not categories. Angryapathy (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep(Duplicate vote struck) If you delete this, then what do you do with the other proposed stadiums/arenas?: [1], [2]

As I stated before, then it gets moved to [3] and in the case of arenas, [4] Roberto221 (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 22:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out other articles is not a valid argument in AFDs. Each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 22:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this article different than all the other articles on the Category:Proposed_stadiums_in_the_United_States page? Don't give me the excuse that it's WP:TOOSOON since they all follow the same criteria. If you can see/read all the other articles, they are not different other than their proposed locations. And I'll use the other articles to make a point and show the inconsistencies in this logic...Roberto221 (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those probably could be draftified or deleted as well (each would need examined individually), but the sole topic of this discussion is the White Sox proposed stadium. Frank Anchor 11:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure the 2024 season is an appropriate target. The stadium won’t open in 2024, and I see it highly unlikely construction would even begin this year. Frank Anchor 11:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a merge, I suggest the merge/redirect go to The 78, which is the area where this stadium is suggested to be built. Angryapathy (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the exact purpose of draft space. Frank Anchor 10:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G. B. Singh

AfDs for this article:
G. B. Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Fuller, Amy Elisabeth, ed. (2009). "Sing, G.B. 1954–". Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Nonfiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, and Other Fields. Vol. 270. Detroit: Gale. pp. 396–398. ISBN 978-0-7876-9528-6. ISSN 0275-7176. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Born September 5, 1954, in India, G.B. Singh eventually moved to the United States where he attended the University of Oklahoma. Educated as a periodontist, Singh joined the United States Army Medical Department, launching his career in the military. He gradually rose through the ranks, attaining the position of colonel, unusual in that he is one of few Sikh-American's to ever achieve such a high rank within a branch of the United States armed forces. Sikh-Americans who wear turbans must receive special dispensation if they are to be allowed to hold higher military ranks, and none of them are allowed to be part of units that go into combat. Singh wears his turban proudly along with his military uniform, a trait that has caused considerable talk in this post-9/11 world. While performing his duties, Singh has been stationed all across the country, and has also been stationed in Korea twice. Beyond his work for the Army, Singh is also a student of Indian politics, study- ing that nation's political history and religion, particularly Hinduism, and the life and works of Gandhi."

    2. Reed, Bill (2004-08-24). "Deconstructing Gandhi - Author claims 'Mahatma' guilty of racism, divisiveness". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "Yet, Col. G.B. Singh isn't obeying the rules. His first book, "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity," portrays Gandhi as one of the most dangerous leaders of the 20th century. ... The book is the culmination of 20 years of research, as Singh evolved from one of Gandhi's admirers to one of his harshest critics. ... Singh has a kindly face framed by a dense beard and turban. He appears gentle and soft-spoken until he delves into the subject of Gandhi. Then his passion flares. Singh was born in India to a family of Hindus and Sikhs. He was educated in the scriptures, and he was trained in the godlike worship of Mahatma Gandhi. ... Singh became a periodontist and emigrated to the United States in 1976. He joined the Army and rose to the rank of colonel, making him one of the highest-ranking officers in the U.S. military to wear a turban."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.B. Singh to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: More than enough coverage in the sources listed above; regardless of the validity of the theories, this person has been talked about in RS, enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The prior AfD was also a keep, for passing AUTHOR. Notability is not temporary, there was a valid discussion 13 yrs ago and it was notable then and still is today. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes no sense to cite past AfD in order to evade the existing concerns, otherwise there would be no option to renominate the article for deletion. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ArvindPalaskar It makes complete sense to mention the past AfD *unless there are new circumstances*, such as standards changing over time. In some topics we have increased our notability standards (i.e., sportspeople). The rationale used to keep the article back then, he is the writer of several notable books, is still valid now. The nomination is literally just incorrect, he passes both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. The Delete views based on the argument that only one review exists were discounted once multiple additional reviews were found, with plenty of time for all participants to assess the sources. Owen× ☎ 22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. At best it has only received little coverage over disinformation it spread. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from more than just 2 twenty years old sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NBOOK does not require sustained coverage for a book to be notable, so the comment about "20-year-old sources" is not relevant. The comment about "garbage books" is also not relevant according to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have now been three journal reviews found, which is more than enough to meet NBOOK. If these reviews are critical of the book, then the article should make note of that. Astaire (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Steger, Manfred (2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". The Historian. 67 (4): 781–782. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2005.00130.x. EBSCOhost 19009759. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The review notes: "If the author had managed to present credible evidence for both theses, his book would have been nothing short of a scholarly sensation, not only invalidating diametrically opposed assessments emerging from nearly eight decades of academic “Gandhiana,” but also dismantling the Mahatma’s popular image. In addition, Singh’s study would constitute a valuable contribution to the existing social science literature on Indian politics. Concerning G. B. Singh’s first thesis, however, this reviewer could not find hard evidence for the sinister manipulations of the “Hindu propaganda machine.”"

      The review notes: "Numerous criticisms of Gandhi’s moral flaws do exist; one only needs to consult pertinent works authored by Ved Mehta, Partha Chatterjee, Joseph Alter, or this reviewer. Yet, out of fairness, these authors balanced their critiques against Gandhi’s impressive moral strengths. By launching a one-sided attack without offering the larger, more complex picture of Gandhi’s ethical and political engagements, the book under review turns into a strident polemic, thus diminishing the considerable value of some of its criticisms."

    2. Clark, Thomas W. (July–August 2006). "Gandhi in Question". The Humanist. Vol. 66, no. 4. pp. 45–47. ProQuest 235297768. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The review notes: "G. B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity subjects Gandhi the saint to death by a thousand cuts. The man is portrayed as an impostor who harbored racist attitudes toward South African blacks and whose efforts on behalf of Hindu "untouchables" were misguided half-measures, designed merely to build his own reputation and political influence. Using dozens of quotes from newspapers, letters, and biographies, most of which actually show Gandhi in a positive light, Singh aims to deconstruct what he calls Gandhi's pseudo-history. ... Singh also offers an unsubstantiated hypothesis that Gandhi, in cleaning out files, deliberately destroyed some incriminating documents sometime after 1906. But he has no evidence as to what the missing documents contained. That their content was racist and their destruction part of a coverup is simply speculation on his part."

    3. Terchek, R. J. (February 2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Choice. Vol. 42, no. 6. p. 1077. doi:10.5860/CHOICE.42-3580. ProQuest 225800157.

      The review notes: "For career military officer Singh, Gandhi's character and record are dark and troublesome. He finds his subject a racist, "macho," a propagandist, beholden to special interests, a liar, a "superb manipulator," a "witch doctor of the worst kind," the "most bribable of all Congress Party leaders," and the list goes on. The book lacks balance and refuses to acknowledge that people can grow and develop, learn from mistakes, and try to move forward."

    4. Narisetti, Innaiah (October–November 2004). "A Critical Look at a National Hero". Free Inquiry. 24 (6): 55–56. ProQuest 230077014.

      The review notes: "Mr. Singh's book attempts to expose the racial prejudices of Gandhi and his followers in South Africa and the sometimes violent nature of his satyagraha movement there and asserts that facts from that period were concealed as biographers, in years to come, relied primarily on Mr. Gandhi's own writings rather than independent research. The author provides a lifeline for Gandhi and a select bibliography as appendices. The book also comes with three unusual caricatures of Gandhi: "Dawn of the New Gandhi," "The Hindu Face of Gandhi the Avatar," and "The Christian Face of Saint Gandhi.""

    5. Volin, Katie (2005-01-02). "Gandhi as a racist doesn't add up". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Although changing people's notions of history can be done, it would take a strong argument to convince many people that Gandhi was racist. Establishing the book's incendiary premise becomes the Achilles heel of G.B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. ... Singh's failure to first define racism and second to demonstrate how Gandhi's behavior with regard to other races was socially aberrant in his lifetime weakens the author's argument irreparably. It is rather difficult to market one's book as a scholarly work if basic definitions and sociological conditions are not even given mention."

    6. Xavier, William (October 2004). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reviewer's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The review notes: "The mud slung at Gandhi by G.B.Singh only adds to the greatness of the Mahatma. (Mahatma means large minded)."

    7. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reference and Research Book News. Vol. 19, no. 4. Copyright Clearance Center. November 2004. ProQuest 199666401.

        The review provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and Gandhi, Singh tries to make some sense of the widely divergent images of the Indian leader by various interests appropriating him for their cause"

      2. Sudeep, Theres (2021-08-17). "Rediscover Gandhi this weekend". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

        3. The review notes: "The book written in biographical form nearly 60 years after the assassination of Gandhi, challenges his image as a saintly, benevolent, and pacifistic leader of Indian independence. It is told through Gandhi’s own writings and actions over the course of his life. ... The book has been criticised for it’s one-sided approach and sweeping statements."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The Keep arguments are stronger, but no consensus emerged. The broad participation makes it unlikely relisting would change the outcome. Owen× ☎ 22:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Under Cross Examination

Gandhi Under Cross Examination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft keep. I can find two independent sources covering this book: this Vice article and this review in the journal Encounter. (I can find no evidence that the article "New Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" cited in the book's page actually exists.) Coverage from two independent sources is enough per WP:NBOOK. The journal Encounter does not appear to be very notable, lacking a Wikipedia article. The review's author Rufus Burrow, Jr. seems to be semi-notable but also lacks a Wikipedia article. Astaire (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astaire. And per the cover image, Hillary v. Gandhi, Obama, et al. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two sources have been provided above but Vice is an unreliable source for notability. Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from just 2 sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vice is "no consensus", not unreliable for the purposes of notability, and IMO this article doesn't fall into Vice's typical pitfalls so it is probably fine. Encounter looks like a decent journal. My issue is the Vice article is an interview - though it does have commentary on the book outside of that, so... eh? I was able to verify the "Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" source exists and what it said but it is a press release and doesn't count for notability.
    Even fringe books get reviewed, so that's not a guarantee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there is no consensus over the reliability of Vice, it cannot be used for establishing notability at all. The source has to be undoubtedly reliable. I agree that the Vice source is insufficient even if the website was a reliable source. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no coverage is secondary reliable sources, vice and semi-reliable journal don't prove the book's notability. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. "Gandhi Under Cross Examination book review". Humanism Ireland. November–December 2009. pp. 22–23.

      This book verifies that Humanism Ireland reviewed the book: "638. "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination," book review, Humanism Ireland, Nov/Dec 2009, pp. 22–23".

    2. Burrow, Jr., Rufus (Fall 2009). "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination". Encounter. Vol. 70, no. 4. Christian Theological Seminary. pp. 61–72. ProQuest 216773616.

      According to this link:

      Christian Theological Seminary has published Encounter: A Journal of Theological Scholarship continuously since 1940. In each of three annual issues, the journal offers scholarly articles, sermons, and reviews of recently published monographs.

      Encounter is a peer-reviewed journal to ensure that its contents meet the highest standards of scholarship and relevance. In particular, the journal publishes works in biblical studies, the history of Christianity, theology, and the arts of ministry, including counseling.

      The review notes: "I was shocked when renowned Martin Luther King, Jr. scholar, Lewis V. Baldwin of Vanderbilt University, asked if I was familiar with the work of an author who argues in Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2004), and the book under review, that Gandhi was consistently racist toward black South Afrikans during his roughly twenty-one years of living there and leading the Satyagraha campaign for racial justice essentially for the Indian community. ... The book under review is my first exposure to G. B. Singh's contention that Gandhi was a racist and that his story of being subjected to violent racist treatment during his 1893 train and coach ride from Durban to Pretoria was nothing more than a sham, a fabrication, “a ruse, a charade, and theatrical revelry of Academy Awards proportions..." (215). It is not clear just how much the co-author, Tim Watson, actually contributed to the writing of this book."
    3. Johnston, Paul (2008-08-04). "Montreal - Gandhi Was a Lying, Racist, Freemason Asshole (Says This Guy)". Vice. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      After reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media, I consider Vice to be sufficiently reliable in this context. I found the list of awards Vice won as discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news? to be compelling. The review notes: "But Tim Watson and G.B. Singh don't buy into the hype. In Gandhi Under Cross-Examination, they create an imaginary courtroom where they can put the screws to an imaginary Gandhi over his non-imaginary racial views, his rampant careerism, and the lies and fabrications at the foundation of his movement for the "firmness of truth." ... I still have no idea what compelled them to put Hillary Clinton on the book's cover."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi Under Cross Examination to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source Humanism Ireland fails WP:V and we don't even know how much coverage there was. Your 2nd source is semi-reliable as already discussed above. Your last source Vice is a totally unreliable source and it cannot be used for establishing notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Humanism Ireland source is verified by this reliable source. It spans pages 22–23 so it is likely significant coverage. Based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news?, I disagree that the Vice article is a "totally unreliable source". Cunard (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are supposed to verify the source yourself. It can be ignored since you haven't done that. WP:VICE is clear that there is no consensus over reliability of Vice, and that's why it cannot be used for establishing notability. I consider Vice to be totally unreliable because most of its articles (including the one cited here) are misleading. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#2009 book review of Gandhi Under Cross Examination in Humanism Ireland for more information about the Humanism Ireland source. I maintain that Vice is a suitable topic for this subject matter. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the Humanism Ireland review was reprinted in the Midwest Book Review, December 2009 if that is easier to access. Astaire (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As noted here, there is a 1,582-word review of the Humanism Ireland review reprinted in the Midwest Book Review in December 2009. This verifies that the review is significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. I stand by my opinion Vice is fine for this topic, and there is review material in the article. The Humanism source is fine + the journal mentioned before. It's peer reviewed and looks reliable, it doesn't matter that it's obscure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three reliable and in-depth published reviews is enough for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vice, an unreliable source, hasn't actually provided any review for this book. Christian Theological Seminary journal has a doubtful reliability while Humanism Ireland is not accessible for us right now. This is far from meeting WP:NBOOK. The book has failed to attract any reviews from the experts of this subject. Orientls (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The interview contains critical and review material outside of the actual interview which does count here I'd believe. Vice is not an unreliable source, they are a source that has historically varied in reliability in different topics and editors have not been able to come to an agreement, that does not mean it is unusable for notability.
    Just because we can't access the source doesn't mean it doesn't count for notability, see WP:NEXIST.
    You've provided no evidence the other journal would be unreliable except it is somewhat obscure - there are plenty of obscure reliable journals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we have the source, and it's 1500 words. That is sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Party (disambiguation)

Mario Party (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not need to exist — a clear-cut violation of WP:PARTIAL Loytra (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above JoshuaAuble (talk) (edits) 15:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Mario Party - I think a redirect could be useful since I don't see it would violate WP:G14 since it links to to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists). JuniperChill (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) (Changed to delete, per comment below)[reply]

  • Ah yes, I forgot that there are only two articles that could be refered to as 'Mario Party' and the rest, not so much. Changed to Delete JuniperChill (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3402

IC 3402 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another galaxy that is in a bunch of catalog papers but not notable itself. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Chacha Chaudhary. There is no "Adaptation" section to Redirect to. Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Chaudhary (2019 TV series)

Chacha Chaudhary (2019 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. It only has one ref. M S Hassan (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Orpin

Jay Orpin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this to be a hoax article. It claims that its subject collaborated with a number of highly popular artists across many different genres of music throughout the 2000s. If this were true, one would expect there to be a sizable amount of information about such an accomplished music industry professional. Unfortunately, very little such information can be found. The only sources I could find about this person that weren't user-generated were a website about names that may post-date the Wikipedia article and a citation from a book published in 2013 that definitely does post-date the article, which was created in 2007. Its creator was a sockpuppet of someone who was indefinitely blocked for "insertion of deliberate misinformation". Suspiciously, the page seems to make an effort to conveniently explain away the lack of documentation on Orpin's existence, asserting that Orpin refused to be credited for the tracks he wrote or produced. Although I am confident that this article is a hoax, I listed it at AfD rather than adding a CSD or PROD tag because Orpin is mentioned on a number of other articles as well, making the article's deletion potentially controversial. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 16:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was also unable to find any evidence that this is even a real person. I removed mentions of "Jay Orpin" from articles. toweli (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, the first two references in the article can't be found online and aren't even mentioned anywhere on the Internet. The third points to a 404 page now, and looking at archived versions of the webpage on the Wayback Machine reveals it to be a collection of articles about someone named Shane Drake. Orpin is not mentioned. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 19:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melon Dezign

Melon Dezign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There is significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], but that's only one source of unclear reliability. toweli (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing to prove that the subject is eligible for entry here. Standing on one source since its creation in 2004 yet no available sources that could improve it. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Discovery Kids (India). (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bunty Aur Billy

Bunty Aur Billy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. It has only one ref which is most likely unreliable. M S Hassan (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to British Rail Class 755 with a hatnote to Prussian G 8. Owen× ☎ 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Class 755

Class 755 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After 2 reverts, I have decided to start a discussion on whether class 755 should redirect to British Rail Class 755. The reason is because of the fact most of them searching this term is likely looking for the one in the UK. the pageviews also give a picture, having received over 10x the number of views. The only other topic is Prussian G 8 which is not titled that way so that is why I agree and propose to replace this with a redirect and add a hatnote to the other. This is an example of WP:BLAR - blank and redirect, but others have opposed my change. JuniperChill (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you also want this blanked, simplest is just to delete per above rationale. Next you can create a redirect as you wish. The disambiguation page is clearly unjustified, the rest is just editing. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Rail Class 755 as a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ONEOTHER. S5A-0043Talk 09:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upwave

Upwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).

A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).

Ordinarily I'd redirect this to List of Y Combinator startups as an alternative to deletion, but given the name change I think it makes the most sense to retarget the existing redirect "Survata" there instead. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:
  • This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
  • The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
  • This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
  • This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
  • This next from MrWeb is based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
  • Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
In summary, none of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any sources that do. HighKing++ 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubify, aggressively with great prejudice. "It is the leading Analytics Platform that provides software and data to plan, measure and optimize brand marketing" - holy slop Batman!!!!!!! There are indeed sources here that seem to show at least some notability. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think that it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do and who funds them. The web is a freaky place with lots of shady players on it, and I feel like anything that helps people more effectively navigate the landscape of endless conglomerates and funding rounds and servers sending data to other servers sending data to other servers is good. The only concern is that these companies may use their Wikipedia articles as a form of advertising, which of course we should not permit. jp×g🗯️ 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG: which sources do you believe demonstrate notability? I agree that, generally speaking, it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do – but to do that in the first place, we need substantive coverage from independent sources to lay the groundwork for an article. – Teratix ₵ 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survata.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm going to disagree with both of the above two comments. Every single article on a company is a burden on the Wikipedia community to ensure it doesn't get turned into an ad. The less notable the company is the harder it is for the community to meet that burden, both because there's less content to base a neutral article on and because fewer people are likely to be watching it. This is the very reason why we have the strict notability guidelines for companies that we do. And since there's been no specific answer to Teratix's question, the argument that it fails them has gone unchallenged. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Green Gold Animations#Television. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chorr Police

Chorr Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. The article lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. It does not offer in-depth analysis or substantial coverage in reputable publications. The references cited do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. M S Hassan (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3686

IC 3686 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another galaxy that is in a bunch of catalog papers but not notable itself. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Tiger Development

Flying Tiger Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable videogame development company, seemingly, from the limited information I have found, a subcontractor the actual studio hires for certain tasks such as localization. The entire article's sources list consists of links to the company's website and IMDb, and I've been unable to find adequate sourcing to write a better article, so don't think it can be done (feel free to prove me wrong though, I may have missed something!). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not even fit WP:ORGSIG, with little to no coverage in independent sources as well as the lack of independent sources available. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 1682

IC 1682 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. The claim that It has been extensively researched by NASA isn't supported by the citation given, which is a database maintained by NASA, and is WP:OR/personal opinion of the Wikipedia user. C messier (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 15:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Malek

AfDs for this article:
Muhammad Abdul Malek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. While Thryduulf found some sources, they are almost alone in believing that these sources warrant keeping or merging the article. Based on our policies and guidelines, the "delete" arguments are not only more numerous but also stronger: Thryduulf's sources are scattered bits and pieces of mostly primary sources, not the kind of material we generally admit establishes notability.

While a merger would normally be a possible ATD in such a case, in this instance neither the few lines of prose nor the data in the infobox are cited, and as such, nothing appears to be mergeable at present. If better sourcing for the existing content is found later, this can be restored via WP:REFUND for merging. But it might be easier to add some new content from scratch based on what sourcing has been found. Sandstein 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail DHP1

British Rail DHP1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: without sources. Nothing came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There just isn't anything written about this that I can find [8], a photo there, and [9], a magazine that won't open for me... I'd maybe merge this into the list of British locomotives, but it's unsourced regardless. I mean, the information came from somewhere, but we don't have a source identified... Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any evidence of SIGCOV, and no suitable redirect target seems to exist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately, unless offline sourcing exists (which wouldn't surprise me). I found a couple of sources that were neither in-depth nor reliable which suggest that British Rail Class 17 (on which it was based) would make an appropriate merge target if we can verify the information. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge British Rail Class 17 or Clayton Equipment Company are the obvious places to look for a mention, but there isn't any there (the latter has a see also, the first has nothing). It's mentioned in the table at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators so that might also be a suitable merge target. Some more googling has found some things that prove existence and verify some of what is in the article:
      • [10] a primary sources, but it verifies it was a "Prototype 1500HP BoBo Diesel Hydraulic", the drawing contains a copyright date which might be useful but I can't read it.
      • [11] indicates that there is a lot more information available from the manufacturer, but being primary that would all speak to verifiability not notability.
      • [12] This copy of a Railways Illustrated article (see PDF page 3) has a small amount of information, and presumably counts as a secondary source.
      • [13] A review of this book indicates that it includes information about the DHP1, but as I don't have a copy I can't say too much.
      • [14] This forum post has some quotes from an article in Classic Diesels and Electrics magazine issue 3 (December 1997/January 1998) described elsewhere as "Major", it also notes that there was at least a drawing in Modern Locomotives Illustrated No 174. I've not been able to find either magazine online. However, combined with the number of models of it that exist, I'm satisified that notability is demonstrated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      After thinking about this a bit more, I now think that Clayton Equipment Company would be the best place to merge this to as most of the sources frame it in the context the manufacturer, the relationship to Class 17 is limited and not only does the list article not really having anywhere great to put a section of prose it feels a bit undue to have that much detail about an individual entry. As for whether to merge or keep as a stand-alone article, I might be leaning towards the former but I'd not describe either as a clear preference at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is basically unverifiable. Even if it were conclusively proven to exist it would only merit a brief mention within the Class 17 article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is any serious doubt that this existed and was based on the Class 17. I haven't found a reliable source that states this but the variety and nature of the unreliable ones I've found leaves me in no doubt. However we do need reliable sources, and while I would be surprised if such didn't exist they haven't been found yet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this conclusively exists, a redirect wouldn't hurt, but the question is where do you redirect it to? I don't think this is mentioned in any other article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also my newer comment above, but there is a mention at List of British Rail modern traction locomotive classes#Builders' demonstrators. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a clear delete but additional sources were brought to the discussion yesterday and it would be nice to have them assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of the additional sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I won't mark this as a vote, because I opened this discussion... going by the lack of engagement alone, I would be inclined to suggest this be closed as a Delete or Merge (as proposed by Thryduulf). We can't keep relisting the AFD forever... Danners430 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf's digging. It also has some coverage in Modern Railways of its time.
I wouldn't merge to the class 17 article because, despite the maker and cab similarities, they're very different locos. The engines are different (and there are twice as many) and the bogies are too, as the hydraulic has mechanical final drives rather than traction motors. Mostly the DHP1 would probably have avoided the 17's best known feature, its awful unreliability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3

IC 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as it is not notable. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 15:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non notable. It's difficult to search on the galaxy identifier because it turns up a lot of false positives (such as IC 310), but a check in SIMBAD didn't turn up any article titles that referenced "IC 3". Nor does it show up in astronomy books. A few astronomy web sites mention it briefly, but without any substantial discussion. Praemonitus (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I'm seeing clear consensus against a standalone article, and considerable opposition to a merger for reasons of due weight. As such the consensus here is for deletion. If someone wishes to develop this content toward a partial merger I'm happy to provide a userspace copy, but I'm explicitly noting that there is not consensus supporting a complete merger here, and large mergers would probably require more discussion at the target talk page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division III independents football records

List of NCAA Division III independents football records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic is not notable enough for a standalone article, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is a list of records for loosely-related college football team seasons. These teams are "independent" and do not belong to conferences, only joined together because they are in a division of college football together. The text in many of these templates also show up as wikitext because of improper code writing. This list was also created as a way to try avoiding deletion of the individual templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 13#Template:2023 NCAA Division III independents football records. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting following a deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatman31, you don't think NCAA Division III independent schools is a reasonable merge target? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, because that list is of the schools which don't belong to a conference in any sport, without historical standings or records; merging these football records there would give them undue weight and make the page much more unwieldy. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3971

IC 3971 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another galaxy that is in a bunch of catalog papers but not notable itself. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 158

IC 158 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, as it is not notable. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 16:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another galaxy that is not notable. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 42

IC 42 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, as it is not notable. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 16:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another galaxy that is not notable. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Gandhi International School, Ahmedabad

Mahatma Gandhi International School, Ahmedabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macleod Group

Macleod Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Searches are also not yielding anything. Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There was a clear consensus against deletion, but views were more or less evenly split between Keep and Redirect. And while Redirect can be picked as an alternative to deletion even in the absence of consensus to redirect, it cannot be picked as an alternative to keeping without consensus to do so. Debate between leaving the content as a standalone article, redirecting or merging can continue editorially, and doesn't require AfD. Owen× ☎ 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Pearce

Aiden Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, after doing WP:BEFORE; I don't see any SIGCOV for this character at all and it mostly relies on game reviews at reception. Detailed issue has been shared at the article's talk page already by other user. I'll suggest it by merging/redirecting it into Watch Dogs (video game). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There is news sources showing wider coverage, some of which have been provided on the talk page and are in the process of being incorporated into the article. This is by no means the least notable of it's kind so a deletion discussion so soon seems like a rash decision. This can be, at worst, made into a characters of Watch Dogs article like Jclemens has already suggested.
TheBritinator (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who brought those sources to the talk page, and those aren't WP:SIGCOV, but I understand that you're still quite new to WP:VG's notability. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Not seeing any significant coverage here, and the article is primarily sourced entirely to reviews. Not showing independent notability from the subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – If we disregard GameRant for Notability determinitation (which I believe we should), the only reliable source focused specifically on the character listed here is The Washington Post. Because Aiden Pierce is the lead character of the Watch_Dogs franchise, I think it would be easy to have a complete description of the character there without running into undue weight issues. Criticism of Pierce is criticism of Watch_Dogs as a whole, hence why most of the reliable sources used in this article are full-game reviews. The Appearances section largely recounts the plot of the games (at length, using almost exclusively primary sources, ugh), which also shows the strong overlap. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral after more sources have been dug up. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Maplestrip. Someone can always expand on the main character's backstory and reception at the main game article. There isn't so much good coverage that it meets WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • But his hat is so iconic! Redirect per Mable. None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character, but rather discuss him in the context of a review of the game as a whole. No development info. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per nom - the reception is largely trivial mentions pulled from reviews, rather than discussing him alone as a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though most above are saying that the article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, I found a few articles on the character on numerous sources [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]([22]small section) and theres this short guide from IGN which I'm not sure counts and the GiantBomb one looks like an actual review. MK at your service. 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, see Nilin (Remember Me), the character's reception mostly uses the game's reviews, and the appearances section uses lines from the game to reference it. Some articles do exist on the character, which are mentioned in the concept and development section. MK at your service. 08:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not really an argument; Nilin could be notable after digging per WP:BEFORE and not because of that game reviews. Comparing other articles isn't helpful. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why are you pulling out more game reviews, plot content-like sources, and unreliable sources/wiki/game guide articles. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's go through these. (1) Game Industry News is currently listed as non-conclusive, and Michael Blaker does not seem particularly experienced. Article praises the character and repeats that he gets "reintroduced" in this novel, but there's nothing else here. (2) ScreenRant I would not count for WP:N. (3) IGN, this looks like a really good one! (4) Tassi on Forbes is a senior contributor, which I think is a good sign? This article is actually about something. (5) GameInformer review with a focus on what Pearce represents and such. (6) Petrick Kepleck (GiantBomb), despite looking like a wiki editor, is indeed a proper reporter. Proper reception and emotional significance on Aiden. (7) NME, I have to be wondering if all this stuff is just part of Watch_Dogs: Legion reception specifically. There's some stuff here but not much. (8) Yahoo review that does not add to WP:N. All-inall, still zero development information, which makes me hesitant, but there's a lot more here. Shame none of it was used. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IGN is more like a game-guide content;but there's no need to expound more since its not gonna survive AfD. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IGN does both, and it's important to separate the articles from the gameguides from the user-generated stuff. Joe Skrebels seems to have been a professional news editor at IGN. Confusingly, when I open this article, it redirects me to a Dutch translation with a different author. Annoying, but the effort of translation may suggest that IGN considers this a good article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I think I worded it incorrectly oops. I mean't the IGN that was brought up here as a sourcd not IGN in General is just making game guide content. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jumping in here, but Forbes contributors like Tassi are generally recommended not to use as Forbes doesn't apply editorial oversight to their works. Tassi also has some infamy in journalistic circles which doesn't help.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Maplestrip. The above also isn't convincing me, given it's mainly reviews and valnet. And normally I like Valnet but you need some meat to go with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most redirect !votes seem to be at least partially based on None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character. That, however, is explicitely not required to establish notability according to WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Of course something meaningful and fitting for an encyclopedia on the article's subject still needs to be contained in those secondary sources with a different main topic like e.g. the game as a whole. Daranios (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We already have a reasonable reception section without regress to Valnet sources, thus the article in its current form already fullfills WP:WHYN and therefore WP:N, even though the plot probably needs trimming to balance. In addition we have the Vice web article, which incidentally does have Aiden Pearce as its main topic, and more secondary sources have been listed and sorted above. Again, some of the do have the character as the main topic. In addition, there's a brief paragraph of commentary on Aiden Pearce in this academic publication. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vice is the only situational source that could be a bit decent. However, I don't think we already have a "reasonable reception section" because of article being bloated with game reviews and plenty of game-guide content? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 18:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About being bloated, I guess we agree that the plot summary content currently is not balanced with the reception section. But that's a problem that can be solved by normal editing and is therefore not a reason for deletion. And we do have a reception section which in my view does not consist of game-guide content. The fact that the sources making up the reception section are mostly game reviews does not invalidate their use, as the content which has been taken from them here is direct commentary on the character, i.e. the topic of the article. Daranios (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One problem with "Per X" !votes is that if X changes her opinion mid-discussion, as happened here, those Per X !votes become ambiguous or ill-defined. Please stick to substantive arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronos (pretrained model)

Chronos (pretrained model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written like a advertisement, no RS found. MarkTechPost that is linked in the article is a AI media platform which would land it squarely in unreliability land. Sohom (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LNER Class Y11

LNER Class Y11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article tagged as unsourced, and indeed is unsourced, since 2015. Propose merging into another suitable article, as this doesn't appear to meet notability requirements - a search doesn't yield any reliable sources. Danners430 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thue (programming language)

AfDs for this article:
Thue (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, non-notable, one of hundreds if not thousands of esolangs. wound theology◈ 07:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most of the content of the article appears to be from the esolang wiki article, and that's the only non-primary mention of it I could find online (And even then, only through the external links section, a quick internet search returned no english-language results). Fails WP:GNG for me. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 13:27, June 18, 2024
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Four Uganda

Chapter Four Uganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article that doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. The sources were solely based or more about the founders arrest. Hence if this is going to be beneficial, I would consider redirecting to Nicholas Opiyo. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I want this to be notable. However it does not seem to me to have a valid claim to notability, and the references, or lack of useful references, confirm this. Most are about the founder and his arrest, Others are snippets actually about C4U, but are not independent dent, not significant coverage 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angara Airlines Flight 200

Angara Airlines Flight 200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of sources constitute those of primary sources with a lack of reliable secondary sources. The event does not have in-depth coverage with a failure of continued coverage with lasting effects having not been demonstrated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not the best article, but there are clearly sources on the Russian language article showing sustained coverage of this fatality-causing incident. SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The russian article on Angara Airlines Flight 200 has been nominated for deletion since 2021 with those three sources talking about the heroic actions of the flight attendant. I don't mind including this in the article but there needs to be more coverage talking about the accident for a sustained amount of time for the accident to be considered notable.

    "of this fatality-causing incident."

    Per the event criteria, criterion #4, Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
    There doesn't seem to be much that would give this accident, whilst tragic, additional enduring significance. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely disagree with you. Whether something is notable on another Wikipedia does not matter. We usually keep articles on fatal commercial plane crashes, and those articles in the Russian article discuss the flight attendant being honoured by Putin, so a big deal, and retrospectives in Russian such as [29]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has deleted fatal aviation accidents involving commercial airliners. "Usually keep" doesn't always mean "keep" unless something gives the accident enduring significance.
    You mention the flight attendant but what makes the accident notable in itself? The article fails multiple guidelines for a stand-alone article. In my opinion, there isn't enough that gives this accident enduring significance that would warrant a standalone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The death of the flight crew in normal passenger aviation combined with the lasting coverage of the event through the honouring of the flight attendant clearly gets it over the bar. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources covering the flight attendant's honouring are primary sources since they reported on the news when it came out without actually doing much analysis. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the articles on the flight attendant are clearly secondary, not "breaking news." See [30], that is clearly not a primary source. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's needs to be a consistent pattern of secondary sources. One secondary source does not make the rest secondary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's plenty of secondary sources available for this incident. I don't really know why you're trying to discredit this on that ground. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 12:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. gidonb (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The community has a longstanding consensus that the crash of a regularly-scheduled commercial passenger flight resulting in a total hull loss, fatalities, significant impacts aside from the crash of the aircraft, and/or long-term regulatory changes meets notability standards. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by the following reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I'm busy. I don't expect to be able to spend much more than casual morning coffee drive-by's until mid-July at best. You could try searching youself? It shouldn't be hard to find. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what I did and it turned up nothing, so unless you're referring to the essay of WP:AIRCRASH, I don't see what longstanding consensus you're talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of, nor have I been able to find, any such consensus either. WP:AIRCRASH is merely intended to help assess whether an event is worthy of mention in lists of accidents and incidents, and sure enough this accident is quite rightly listed on the airline, aircraft and airport articles. Just possibly, we could redirect to one of those rather than deleting it outright. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VASP Flight 210, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Jubba Airways crash, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Astana Flight 1388, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ural Airlines Flight 178, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozark Air Lines Flight 982, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami Air Flight 293, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lao Aviation Flight 703. I'm sure there's plenty of others, but those are ones I found by searching my contribution history. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But could you link an established consensus? Community "consensus" doesn't override policy and guidelines which the article/event fails and does not excuse it from not meeting multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it's consistently brought up shows that it demonstrates at least some sort of "consensus" about how these articles are reviewed at AfD. In this instance, it was a passenger flight which resulted in fatalities, and received sustained coverage "after the event," which usually results in a keep. I don't know why this would be different. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been brought up but it has never been established as an actual consensus.
Some articles, such as Lao Aviation FLight 703, Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60, Miami Air Flight 293, Ozark Air Lines Flight 982 were nominated shortly after the creation of their article. Some articles such as Ural Airlines Flight 178, Air Astana Flight 1388 and VASP Flight 210, in hindsight, were very serious accidents due to their unique circumstances.
Notability isn't immediately inherited just because the event involved a commercial airliner. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying notability is inherited because of that, but look at the fresh deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 - it lists all the reasons when we generally characterise coverage of an aviation incident as lasting. SportingFlyer T·C 21:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by a previous reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRCRASH is not policy and it specifically recommends not being used at AfD. That being said, it absolutely does reflect how we tend to assess these sorts of articles for deletion, and is referenced over 800 times. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is being referenced over 800 times incorrectly. As you said, WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy, so actual policy based arguments take precedence over essays. I don't see much evidence of this essay being thoroughly supported by the community. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not being used incorrectly. It's been mentioned at several AfDs recently and is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Senegal Flight 301 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RA-78804 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 SkyJet Elite Astra crash and you yourself used it in March here to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 35. You can't have it both ways... SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I used it incorrectly. I was told on another AfD to not use it as it was an essay which I have not since. As for the other Afds linked, just because they're used doesn't mean it's being correctly used. I can't speak for the others but let me remind you that consensus was quite clear cut in the others so arguments mentioning WP:AIRCRASH probably were not given too much value. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, in all those that you linked except for UA35, it was stated the use of WP:AIRCRASH was flawed and should not be used. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's an "and/or" in that sentence. So one or more of the items in that list. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My question still stays. [...] and long-term regulatory changes / [...] or long-term regulatory changes, it doesn't matter since it's being mentioned. Why mention it in the first place if it's being discarded and not going to be elaborated on? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Typo. Fixed in the source. gidonb (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, which sources are you referring to? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop bludgeoning this debate. It is annoying when nominators try arguing with each single editor who "dares" to disagree with their opinion. Moderators had their say in the intro. This intro wasn't unreasonably written, yet that doesn't guarantee that each editor will agree with you. We all do our research and bring our knowledge of policies, guidelines, subject matter, and other experience to a debate. gidonb (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I found some evidence of WP:LASTING from mention 4 years later in The Sunday Times -https://archive.is/OZXqk. I believe this crash may be plausible (barely) notable as part of a wider phenomenon cited by the times of Antonov An-24 airplanes being disproportionately involved in fatal accidents. BrigadierG (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about lasting effects or lasting coverage? From what I can tell, this is more of a brief mention, part of a wider range of An-24 accidents, since this was the first An-24 accident since Angara Airlines Flight 200. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to respond to everyone who disagrees with your nomination? SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan Gupta

AfDs for this article:
Kanchan Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable journalist, articles depend on totally one reference, fails WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article relies almost entirely on one source, and therefore fails General notability guideline. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There seems to be some consensus to rename the article, but that is outside the scope of AfD. Owen× ☎ 16:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M-T pronouns

M-T pronouns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:

"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."

Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field — Iadmc♫talk  10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.
    As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.
    Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.
    I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.
    An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)
    What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete — Iadmc♫talk  12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article— Iadmc♫talk  12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "teach the controversy" energy.
    @Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.
    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.
Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:
  1. "Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia"[31] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
  2. "Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"[32] by Juha Janhunen
Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?
I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took your suggestion and merged in the N-M stuff and moved the article to M–T and N–M pronoun patterns. I haven't had a chance yet to incorporate your sources, and this week's going to be rather busy, but it's on my to-do list. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a redirect to Nostratic languages be possible here? This seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not a good idea. The topic is notable outside of the Nostraticist bubble. The author that has most contributed to our understanding of the topic, Johanna Nichols, does not endorse long-range speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably clean up. Gbooks turned up this sound-looking source. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a brief mention simply referring back to Nichols again; there's not the sort of in-depth analysis that you'd expect for a notable topic...or any analysis for that matter. The OR/SYNTH here is strewn so inextricably throughout the article, and the topic so niche, contributed by a single author, that cleanup seems exceedingly improbable. At the very least, WP:TNT applies here if anyone thinks that they can demonstrate notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inextricable? Don't turn subjective unwillingness to extract the obvious bits of OR/SYNTH into an intrinsic property of the text. WP:TNT is not an excuse for laziness. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move articles while their AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm leaning delete, but I think kwami is right that there can be articles about arguments used for dubious language families, and I think calling the article "original research" is overly critical. However, the WALS map is not clearly about an argument used for certain proposed families, but about the distribution of sounds in certain pronouns - whether or not these have been used as arguments for Nostratic/Altaic/Indo-Uralic or whatever - at least in my reading. I would like to see more sources that are specifically about the pattern, otherwise it seems to get undue weight by having an article. The topic could instead be covered under the name of "(Personal) pronouns in Nostratic/etc", which would make sense under a very different structure (so not sure a move would be useful, or?), and maybe even better to start it as a subsection in the relevant proposed family's article. This would probably better reflect the context that the pattern is discussed in, in the sources. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename to "phonetic patterns in pronouns" or something like that. The best of multiple bad options. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that would be recognizable. I think "M–T and N–M pronoun patterns" as suggested above would be best. Those are the two patterns that are notable globally. We can still have an 'other patterns' section. — kwami (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Live (British TV program)

Saturday Live (British TV program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created in 2009 by a user who hasn't edited since then. According the article itself, it was a two hour long show that ran from 2005 to 2011. A WP:BEFORE search would appear to indicate some questions about whether this purported Sky News show actually ever happened. WP:NTV would appear to be applicable here. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoopla Software

Hoopla Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. PROD removed by IP editor claiming "I could find sources" without actually adding any sources. – Teratix ₵ 07:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. Only one article was tagged as being part of this AFD discussion. This was not set up as part of a bundled nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tardza Project

Tardza Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The three pages Tardza Project, Criollo_Project and CarBone (company) are not written appropriately for Wikipedia, and have very marginal notability at best. I tagged them on NPP, but the editors have made no attempt to improve them. I am therefore doing a AfD, this one is the worst and I see no reason it can meet WP:N Ldm1954 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Toghtua Bukha

Wang Toghtua Bukha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Uncited. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented above. Other encyclopedias having an entry is a good sign we should as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion divided between Redirect and Keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear sources demonstrate notability. Most contributions to this article are from connected contributors, as noted on talk page. -- Beland (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelving engineering

Shelving engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The phrase "shelving engineering" returns zero google results beyond the name of one particular company. This appears just to be a random miscellaneous thing (shelving) that might need to be engineered, like a zillion other forms of "engineering" with no particular name. EEng 06:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sources talking about "shelving engineering" whatsoever and even if there were sources they could be easily added under Shelf, which has plenty of space and is not a long article. Would vote "Merge" except for the lack of significant content or references. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3Roam

3Roam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Brown

Clayton Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Olympic rower who did not receive a medal and does not meet either Olympic notability for athletes who received medals or general notability based on significant coverage. The only reference is a database entry. Heymann criterion is to find significant coverage within seven days and expand this stub.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded pretty trivial until I checked the articles, and he was inducted over 65 years later, with significant coverage, albeit local. Nfitz (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there's excellent coverage, albeit a bit regional. Digging into the national media, there's brief mentions of him in the 1960s and 1970s (coaching) in the Globe and Mail - not GNG in themselves, but not local. Nfitz (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Sharma

Himanshu Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failes WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Nothing special found any search engine! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review newly added sources to the article, especially the nominator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melody & Harmony

Melody & Harmony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:BAND, with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, just a few album reviews on music blogs. Wikishovel (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: One look at their Spotify page will show you they have 2 monthly listeners, clearly not WP:N. However, I don't want to be too rash when arguing for delete, and in this case, I think we could draftify the article so it can be improved, and inevitably apply for submission if/when the band becomes more notable. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for draftifying this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AREA (fashion label)

AREA (fashion label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible failure of WP:NCORP some of the claims are Celebrity X wore it here. Also the others seem to be puff pieces and nothing substantial Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rheji Burrell

AfDs for this article:
Rheji Burrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure how this article looked back in 2012 when the first AfD came about, but now the article is confusing because it doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be about Mr. Burrell alone or about him and his brother. At any rate, the article discusses a non-notable production team(?) whose own discography hasn't seen them ever having charted; and the list of albums that they supposedly produced for other artists isn't sourced. It doesn't help that the article reads like the brothers themselves wrote it. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voskos Greek Yogurt

AfDs for this article:
Voskos Greek Yogurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was previously deleted, then re-created. Nothing seems to have changed to establish notability. The article cites four sources but the 1st, 3rd and 4th are press releases, on trade blogs that will publish anything about products. The 2nd is a very trivial mention. None of these would seem to establish notability under WP:CORP. Might be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but I can't view what was deleted and it was a long time ago. Here2rewrite (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Namibian first-class cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gert Dippenaar

Gert Dippenaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Hadoti

Conquest of Hadoti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Johnstone

Russell Johnstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. The supplied sources are all primary. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: From what I can tell, the Equestrian Life story is a paid promotional piece. The other source is a database, and I'm not finding anything better to show this subject meets the WP:GNG. BLPs require strong secondary sourcing, and that doesn't appear to be there here. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Anantnag encounter

2023 Anantnag encounter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, counterterrorism/counterinsurgency such as this are not uncommon in the long running Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (part of the broader Kashmir conflict). I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. Owen× ☎ 16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labingi

Labingi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG seems like an list disambiguation. Both articles link to each other in the lead. Could possible be redirected to Westron language? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think WP:NAMELIST refers to a very different case than ours here, with their example of Lincoln (disambiguation): If there is a term with a number of different meanings, which includes both persons' names and other things, then one should only include very prominent examples (like Abraham Lincoln) in the main disambiguation page, while other persons' names should be spun out into a page like Lincoln (name). Here, we only have names of (fictional) persons. Secondly, the guideline says why it exists in the first place: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long. That is very much not a problem here. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is presented as a name list, and uses the templates that are intended for real life people. So I have no choice but to judge it as one - if I don't, it has even less of a claim for existence due to violating WP:PTM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see this also as a name list. WP:NAMELIST, despite its title, does not deal with how to construct name lists, but how to deal with regular disambiguation pages which also contain names, and the relationship between regular disambiguation pages and name lists. The part you have quoted therefore does not apply to our name list here, as is directly present in that part: ...should be listed at the disambiguation page.... So no violation of that guideline here. Daranios (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: We don't need a surname list when everyone on the list is related. Why not? Is that fixed as a consensus somewhere? Obama and Biden redirect to Barack Obama and Joe Biden respectively, because one bearer of the name is clearly much more well known than the others (WP:PRIMARYTARGET). Which is not the case for our two characters here. But we do have Obama (surname) and Biden (surname), which are slightly different cases, but certainly do not lend support for deletion here. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, did not know those existed, but they have unrelated people so my point still stands. Surname lists are typically used for navigational purposes, but when the only two notable people with the surname are father and son, the articles link to each other anyway in their respective leads and the list serves no purpose. It also does not help that this is not the common name for either character. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Hopefully, these new sources can find their way into the article, at least the ones that are reliable. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manyiel Wugol

Manyiel Wugol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don’t see how this subject article is notable. Not by anyway meeting the WP:GNG. On the reference section number 5. Instagram reels cannot be use as a source. His just an upcoming basketball player yet to gain fame and notability that meets the general notability guideline. Even the biography there’s no reference to back them up after making my research on Google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found over 5 reliable sources and news article about Manyiel Wugol which shows he’s a well known basketball in Australia . See below
https://pickandroll.com.au/p/bigger-than-basketball-manyiel-wugols
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8102113/sudanese-refugee-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia/
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/unstoppable-african-australian-athletes-smashing-through-the-barriers/97b7l6fjq
https://thewest.com.au/sport/basketball/sudanese-refugee-manyiel-wugol-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia-after-death-of-close-friend-alier-riak-c-9888802 SportsFanatic220 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further review of new soources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for a review of newly discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atala T

AfDs for this article:
Atala T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sorry, another company blatantly failing the notability guidelines for companies that is ineligible for PROD because this 2007 AfD exists. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORPDEPTH. A search of the company name brings up no relevant information or coverage (other than the wiki article itself). ADifferentMan (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half the sources are deadlinks and the other don't contain the company's name, clearly not notable enough. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. C. Janardhan Reddy

B. C. Janardhan Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested without improvement. Does not meet WP:NPOL as a district level official. Only 1 source, which does not have WP:SIGCOV on him. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page about a person took Oath as Cabinet Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 12th June 2024[1][2][3]

Wikipedia & other editors , this not illegial matter, it is very useful to the viewers. They can know who is this particular Minister

The photo of this person is already existed in Wikimedia commons. So I created this page.

So Wikipedia and editors please don't delete this & please don't nominate for deletion.🙏 Boyina Naga Navadweep Sai (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ntvtelugu.com/news/andhrapradesh-cabinet-ministers-taken-oath-today-613936.html
  2. ^ https://ddnews.gov.in/en/tdp-supremo-chandrababu-naidu-sworn-in-as-andhra-pradesh-cm-in-presence-of-pm-modi/
  3. ^ https://www.ndtv.com/andhra-pradesh-news/andhra-pradesh-pawan-kalyan-among-25-ministers-to-take-oath-with-chandrababu-naidu-5871149
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Participants argue that NACTOR is met here. Deletion rationale is underwhelming and not solidly based in policy or evidence of BEFORE. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Daniel Bolden

AfDs for this article:
Philip Daniel Bolden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Minor roles. Bedivere (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Kurakin

Dmitri Kurakin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Not to be confused with Dmitry Kurakin, sociology professor at Yale University. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: multiple Estonian champion at senior-level championships, see [54] Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Estopedist1 are you arguing to Keep this article? I can't tell.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Basil High School for Superiors

Al Basil High School for Superiors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails notability. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Bassel High School for Outstanding Students Quick-ease2020 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alread PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus supports retention. There's no argument that the article is in a sorry state, but a common theme among contributions to this AfD was that there are multiple reliable sources with sufficient coverage of Long to meet GNG. Hopefully their presentation in this AfD will encourage a rewrite to expand this beyond the current uninformative stub. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Long (white supremacist)

Terry Long (white supremacist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find in-depth coverage. He ran for public office but does not meet WP:NPOL nor WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review sources brought up in this discussion along with any in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I disagree with some of the keeps; it doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources are reliable sources, and there's no significant coverage in any of them. The first mentions the subject, not what he's about, when he was born, what he did in his life, and none of that (which should be a common start in a Wikipedia article). The second one links you to a Google book without telling you what it's about. There is no significant coverage in sight in that link. The third source is not specific; it just points to a list of books without telling you what the subject is about, like all others. Based on what I've viewed with the links and research, there aren't enough sources to meet WP:BLPS; since the person is living, precise sources are needed. Have a look at WP:NPF and WP:PROVEIT. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
*:Also, all of the links Dclemens1971 has sent are all broad, they don't really lead anywhere specifically and I think since this person is living, more precise sources are needed. Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Normanhunter2 They're books. You can't upload full copies of books online, as that is a copyright violation. I accessed them and determined most of them constitute SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand they're books, but WP:BLPS have strict sourcing when it comes to living persons, and as I said in my vote, I don't think I am comfortable with this article on Wikipedia. Normanhunter2 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2 Your argument makes no sense. Most of the provided sources are high quality academic books - what exactly is unreliable about them? They're far more reliable than say, newspaper articles. Those are the best kinds of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a link to a cover of a book, not whats within it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2....??? Do you expect people to commit copyright violations to prove it to you? I checked the books myself, they contain sigcov. You can't link anything else besides say, Google Book listings, or you would be committing a crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to a limited extent, you can search within the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely, you would know WP:DBTN wouldn't you? I'm merely suggesting that since it's a link to a cover of the book, it wouldn't be considered a source because to me, it's not reliable and it clearly says in there that the piece of work itself can affect reliability, which is my main argument here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2 Those are all links to Google Book listings for the page that 1) show you what book exists, who published it, when, enabling someone to search it out 2) a searchable version of the book's contents, which can verify the information. What is your issue with it?
    The link doesn't matter. Offline sources are perfectly fine. The Google Books link is merely a helpful way to find if a book discusses a topic: I have verified that at least three of them do. This is enough for GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to @PARAKANYAA for doing the source analysis below. I'll be honest, @Normanhunter2, your assertion that the "none of the sources are reliable sources" is quite strange. The Atkins book is a standard reference work on extremist organizations published by Bloomsbury Academic, a major academic press. The Kinsella book is published by Harper Collins. Both contain significant coverage of Long, which you can see with the in-text search. Bartley is a respected professor at a major Canadian university and his book has sigcov of Long on pages 248-271. Sherren is a prominent journalist who discusses Long in his memoir. And Perry & Scrivens mention Long on four different pages of a book from a respected academic press. Telling us that "they don't really lead anywhere specifically" and that "it's just a link to a cover of a book" suggests that you didn't bother to evaluate the sources. Finally, no one here is attempting to bite the newcomers. I've been active on Wikipedia for years but started engaging in AfDs only about six months ago, and I spent a lot of time observing and learning. I made some mistakes along the way, and I still do now and again, but learning from other participants and taking their proposed sources and analysis seriously has made me a much better editor. For a new editor who's very, very quickly gotten involved in AfD discussions, I would invite you to be a little less dogmatic and a little more open to the sources that your fellow editors turn up as part of this process. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's significant coverage in the books you're researching, then there should be no problem gathering the information off of the book and placing it into the article. Now, I've scanned through the sources, and find it strange that most of the sources come from books, which are written by ideas of people. As for the articles content, I suggest going over WP:ONEVENT, some text inside of it states: 1. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." 2. "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed." You might ask me, what are you trying to prove here? The answer is, the amount of content on the page, and the single event on the article, I don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. In the simplest terms possible, if the article has only one notable, highly significant event possible, then the article should be included. In this case, looking at the event in the article, there is a tiny, minuscule event there without any information. I know the Wikipedia guidelines are different then what other people think when they read the article, but to me, when I am viewing the article, In the 1980s and early 1990s, he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta. doesnt..quite make sense to me. There is no aftermath of the rally, no pictures of the rally or the person either. We only know this person exists through text. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot about WP:CONTN, disregard the message where it includes the articles content. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where to start with all these ideas!?
    • There is nothing that requires an editor to add the content to the article if he or she supplies it in an AfD as evidence of notability. (I have my own editorial priorities and limited time to participate in Wikipedia.)
    • You "find it strange that most of the sources come from books." Read WP:RS -- the kinds of books I have suggested here (academic books and books published by major publishing houses) are, depending on the context, generally considered high-quality sources. Plus, I have mentioned newspaper sources (several in the article and more here along with book texts you can evaluate with a free archive.org account: https://archive.org/details/texts?tab=collection&query=%22terry+long%22+%22provost%2C+alberta%22&sin=TXT.
    • The presence of pictures is not an indicator or notability, nor is their absence evidence of non-notability.
    Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentioned the guideline WP:RS, what inside of the section should I be looking at here to get a better understanding of your argument here? I'm sure you know that there needs to be multiple, reliable sources on here. Could you explain how the book sources are reliable? It would be helpful if you provided enough information on the books to establish readability on the sources to make sure they're books, otherwise, it could potentially be deleted. Could you also explain to me how those sources fit into the article, and also reliable as well? I'm still sticking to my WP:ONEEVENT point, because it is true that there's only one event on that article (unless if you find another event). Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2 Why is any source reliable? They're published from qualified major publishers with a reputation for fact checking. What information do you have that they're unreliable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Newspapers are usually significantly worse sources than books, FWIW: if there's a reliable book source I would almost always rather use that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you've answered your own question at the first part of your sentence. What information do you have that they're reliable? I should be asking you that contradictory question here.
    1. For this sentence "Terry Long (born May 1, 1946) is the former leader of Aryan Nations in Canada" there's 3 sources that apparently connect to the source, almost a WP:CITEKILL and a WP:REFBOMB.
    2. For the sake of it, I did some research on the authors (obviously using google), and i found some that are deemed not notable. See here, and here.
    3. For the 4th footnote I couldn't find anything about that, and no link has been provided for the newspaper source, that's a little problem here. (If you could provide me the link to that newspaper link then I would go over and read it, but otherwise I wouldn't consider that a source at all).
    4. I went to archive.org and looked at the sources, turns out that it does mention the subject. But still, based on what I've seen here, it's not a notable event. Read WP:BLP1E, it states: "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.", which it does on the newspaper article here. The second reason according to the guideline The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.". As mentioned on the article, the person is only recognized for one event, which kind of makes this a low-profile individual. Last one here: "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." On the newspaper article, it does not thoroughly explain his mention of organizing a white-supremacist group and what he did specifically in that event. All it says is In 1990, the Canadian Aryan Nations’ leader, then Terry Long, organized a white-supremacist gathering in rural Provost, Alberta, that made for the first time that Canadians felt that hate was sprouting from their soil. (it also briely explained that they burnt down a cross and displayed swastikas at non-racism protesters) So this also fails WP:BLP1E too, not enough in-depth coverage at all. In fact, this event has very little significance.
    5. Just a side note here, I would vote on even a weak keep here, but I think delete is the best option here. If the article had more information about the event, I'd gladly change my vote here. But otherwise, I am sticking to my nomination here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2 The NOTABILITY of an article topic is unrelated to the state of the article. Sourcing exists. I volunteer to improve the article should it be kept with the available sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is the "one event"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see what you mean. That is irrelevant to the general notability of the article: notability does not depend on the current state of the article, it depends on the existences of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think they're reliable sources? Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because they're published by reliable authors and publishers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How are they reliable when I couldn't find them by doing a simple google search? Even on the books section too. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2
    "how are they reliable when i couldn't find them on google"
    oh my god.
    Google is bad. Google has no determination on source reliability. Google does not show you the most reliable sources. Most of what you find on Google nowadays is AI generated spam nonsense that is less than worthless.
    Best sources are academic books and journals, neither of which you will find on Google. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But if Google is bad, then wouldn't Google Books or Google Scholar be bad too because they branch off of it? There's also AI generated spam for books and even scholars too, it's everywhere. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google, the search engine, is not good for searching for serious academic treatment of topics. Google Books and Google Scholar aren't perfect but are OK for books and journal articles respectively. They contain some garbage but good stuff too. Google, be it books/scholar or the search engine is nothing but a venue for which to search for sources. Source reliability does not depend on popularity - the Daily Mail is plenty popular, but is one of the least reliable sources imaginable, but a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They never sourced the Daily Mail on the article. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2 ... I don't even know what to say at this point I think this might be a CIR issue PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly not a CIR issue, and you probably knew I was kidding about that. If you didn't, I apologize for that. On the article though, they sourced The Ottowan Citizen but I can't find the page or the year of the release where it says that information. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2 The sources currently in the article don't matter. IIRC the Ottawa Citizen is on newspapers.com so I can go check that later. We have plenty of book sources listed below that are much more reliable and significant than what newspaper coverage is there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP1E, there's only one event on the article. I'm not saying "significant event' because it barely has any coverage of it right now. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2 What is in the article right now has no bearing on notability. That is not what BLP1E means. Read WP:NEXIST PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one small event exists in the article, that's my problem here. Not enough significant coverage on it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2 What exists in the article at the moment is completely unrelated to its notability, given the capacity for improvement with existing sources. WP:NPOSSIBLE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's based on it's reliability. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2 ... of the sources that exist, yes? Which we have repeatedly established. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well..I mean the reliability of the source. If it's a strong one, or a weak source, or a source that doesn't related to the subject at all. That's why I did my inital research of the sources on the article to make sure they were correct.
    Even if they were correct, they still are written by people with their own ideas and perspectives of things in the real world. I believe that only notable authors can be accepted as reliable and not unknown authors. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normanhunter2 The idea that only notable authors are allowed as reliable sources is absolutely ludicrous and under this standard 90% of articles on wiki are not notable. There is not a single aspect of policy that reflects this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think I've said enough about this nomination. We'll see what people think about this. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atkins: This is an encyclopedia of the far right, contains a full length entry on Long. Describes him as "one of Canada's leading" far right figures.
That Wasn't The Plan, couldn't find a copy of this, but from the Google Books preview it seems to discuss Long in depth, going into his plans for racist groups in Alberta in some detail.
Perry & Scrivens seems to be passing mentions
Kinsella seems to have at least two pages of coverage on him on 135-136, as well as 158-159.
Bartley contains sigcov throughout the book, describing Long as a "huge benefit" to recruiters for the KKK, and generally his involvement in these circles.
In conclusion, he passes the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nizam's Carnatic campaigns (1725-27)

Nizam's Carnatic campaigns (1725-27) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is solely based on author's own research and is not supported by any reliable source. Even the sources which the author has used in this article contradicts his claims for example author has used New History of Marathas Vol2 by Govind Sakharam Sardesai in his article and that book's Pg 85-90 (here is the link for book) [55], says there were two campaigns one from 1725-26 and second from 1726-27 both led by Bajirao called "Bajirao's 1st Carnatic Expedition" and "Bajirao's 2nd Carnatic Expedition" the author simply combined those two conflicts kept a name as per his choice which violates Wikipedia guidelines. Also result section has a problem; the same source stated above gives a Maratha victory see Pg 85, quoting 1727 April: Karnatik Chiefs submit to Bajirao, so Nizam victory is also inappropriate.Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Constructive45 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC). Blocked sock. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you provided no counter to my comment for which I nominated this article for deletion. I am assuming it's because you simply can't. Also, I see your talk page is full of edit disputes with other users where you are constantly trying to push your narrative. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_18&oldid=1229785133"