Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 25: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC 848}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC 838}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC 838}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter Four Uganda}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter Four Uganda}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 07:23, 25 June 2024

< June 24 June 26 >

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. ✗plicit 11:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 848

IC 848 (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) 07:23, 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 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 11:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 838

IC 838 (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) 07:21, 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 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 delete‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kneisly

Andrew Kneisly (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 unable to find enough coverage of this American rugby player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. My searches yielded only trivial mentions. A possible redirect is 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads#United States. JTtheOG (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've seen similarly irrelevant sports players with articles about them. Maurnxiao (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article. JTtheOG (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From that website:

This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.

So unless I misinterpreted which is possible, is there any rush to get this article removed? Why not improve it? Maurnxiao (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. In this case, "speedily delete" refers to speedy deletion, a separate, much quicker procedure which does not need a discussion to delete a page. This rugby article is not eligible to be deleted through that medium. However, in my opinion, the subject has not received significant coverage from reliable sources that cover him directly and in detail and thus might fail our general notability guidelines, which is why I brought it to a discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:58, 25 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) 08:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to  United States men nationa rugby league team#Current squad. Delete. Doesn't pass WP:RU/N, because on an inernational level, he played for United States men's national rugby league team (Eagles), but the player is presumed notable if he played for United States men's national rugby union team (Hawks). Per WP:RU/N USA domestic leagues aren't notable. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV, I haven't found any secondary sources that relate directly to the subject. Tau Corvi (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the current squad so the redirect there would not be useful and only played one match at world cup, an alternative could be Colonial Cup (rugby league), but lack of significant coverage makes delete seem a reasonable option. EdwardUK (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thanks Tau Corvi (talk) 18:30, 11 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! 07:12, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jite Agbro

Jite Agbro (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:NBIO; no WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2019/11/20/figurative-collage-artist-jite-agbro-explores-who-belongs ? Real Change News is a publication of Real Change Homeless Empowerment Project ? Yes ? Unknown
https://artisttrust.org/artists/jite-agbro/ No Artist Trust is a 501c3 nonprofit organization that supports working artists of all disciplines in Washington State No No Grantee listing ✘ No
https://www.pccmarkets.com/sound-consumer/2020-09/new-jite-agbro-art-at-pcc/ No Puget Consumers Co-op No Promotional article about an exhibition ✘ No
https://www.biartmuseum.org/exhibitions/jite-agbro-deserving/ No No ? Listing of "Jite Agbro: Deserving" exhibition at BIMA (Bainbridge Island Museum of Art) ✘ No
https://www.4culture.org/gallery_work/jite-agbro/ No No ? Listing of exhibition by 4Culture - the venue ✘ No
https://museo.cc/jite-agbro No No No artist statement on gallery site ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190925163156/https://www.thestranger.com/events/26432310/jite-agbro-skpt No No No local listing for an event ✘ No
https://www.juanalonsostudio.com/front-room-gallery/2017/1/31/guest-artist-jite-agbro No No ? Gallery site ✘ No
https://madartseattle.com/artists/jite-agbro/ No No ? exhibition listing for MadArt - local art space ✘ No
https://www.bainbridgereview.com/life/bimas-six-new-seasons-shows-open-oct-12/ No No Multi event listing in Bainbridge Island Review ✘ No
https://www.4culture.org/public_art/your-proper-name/ No No exhibition listing by sponsor 4Culture ✘ No
https://artgallery.seattlecentral.edu/jite-agbro-armor No No No listing of exhibit by M. Rosetta Hunter Art Gallery ✘ No
https://www.seattleu.edu/su-today/announcements/blue-is-our-color-black-memory-identity-and-protest.html ? ? ? dead link ? Unknown
https://www.cornish.edu/news/2019-neddy-at-cornish-award-finalists-announced/ No Yes Yes listing of Advancement, Neddy at Cornish, press release for 2019 Neddy at Cornish Award Finalists ✘ No
https://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/life/art-galleries-spring-forth-in-may/ No No No multiple listings for art shows; Langley Art Walk is 5-7 p.m. ✘ No
https://artxchange.org/show/artxchange-gallery-bloodlines ? ? No listing for group show ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 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! 05:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of British scientists

List of British scientists (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:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by city, by field by century,...), there is no need for this overarching list. Broc (talk) 06:05, 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! 05:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of American scientists

List of American scientists (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:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), there is no need for this overarching list. Broc (talk) 06:01, 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! 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 speedy keep. WP:RFD, not AFD, is for redirects. It would probably not be a good idea to nominate it there either, considering sources like Britannica: Turkish: “Kemal, Father of Turks” , i.e. that he is closely associated with the name Father of Turks. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Father of Turks

Father of Turks (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)

"Father of Turks" is the rough meaning of the last name of Ataturk, but it does not justify creating a redirect from this term to the Ataturk article. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:03, 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! 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Frameworks

Wolf Frameworks (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 guideline for companies. Sources are trivial or non-independent. Ineligible for PROD. – Teratix ₵ 04:05, 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! 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne McDonald (businessman)

Wayne McDonald (businessman) (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)

No substantial independent coverage of this businessman/bodybuilder. Writing a long undergrad thesis is not a claim of importance. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:08, 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. This is clearly a SNOW situation without any support at all for Deletion but the nominator. Any further decisions on splitting articles are editing choices that can occur outside of this AFD. I urge the nominator to listen to the opposing side, who are editors who focus on this subject area, and not reject their expertise as if it is a matter of cliquishness. They probably know the sources and literature better than the rest of us. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024

Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 (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 claim that this was a single event is WP:SYNTH by Wikipedia editors. I haven't checked all 99 sources, but at a glance none of them talk about a week-long "tornado outbreak sequence". Because these events aren't part of a single outbreak sequence. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You...nominate an article for deletion with 99 RS sources, including one of the strongest tornadoes in history, with full RS sources published within the last 48 hours? Really? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 exists separately from this article, which appears to be about individual tornadoes on these dates which no source appears to claim were a single "outbreak sequence". Walsh90210 (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A tornado outbreak sequence is just multiple back-to-back tornado outbreaks. That definition is scientifically published and sourced. Tornado outbreak#Tornado outbreak sequence. You should not have AfDed this, but rather gone to the talk page for split attempts. I absolutely highly oppose a deletion of this article, given it is absolutely notable for Wikipedia and no one can question that. You have an issue with the article name and should have used WP:SPLIT and WP:RM...not AfD. You did not look at what to do before nominations for deletion, which would have mentioned that. Just to note, you are directly saying (through a deletion nomination) the article should not exist...despite having 99 RS sources, including a high WP:LASTING impact with clear LASTING coverage. So no, you will not gain any support for this AFD as this is a very botched AFD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy oppose and recommend a fast-paced WP:SNOW-close for the above reasons by WeatherWriter. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to withdraw this; this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article. List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 is suitable, and Draft:2024 Greenfield tornado probably would be as well; this is not. The concept of a "tornado outbreak sequence" that conflates every weather event across 2000 miles for 8 days is not supported by the sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote has been noted. You believe the article's content should not exist, meaning you are challenging the notability of it, more or less over the idea that it is a "tornado outbreak sequence" name, which could easily be fixed with splits and requested moved. I do appreciate you clarifying that your deletion reason isn't strictly the name "tornado outbreak sequence" but rather "this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Walsh90210: If I may ask, why do you oppose the idea of splitting this into multiple tornado outbreak articles? The idea of "tornado outbreaks" are supported by the sources ("A deadly tornado outbreak..."[12] Also, it is very obvious that there were several tornadoes across the United States during that timeframe. Why are you opposed to something like "May 19-27 severe storms" or even splitting it up into individual events like the sources do (i.e. Tornado outbreak of May 19, 2024, Tornado outbreak of May 20, 2024, ect..) or renaming it to "severe storms" when sources use it more. For example, "The May 19, 2024 Severe Weather Event" as named by the U.S. government. I am asking the question, because your arguing that none of the information should be on Wikipedia, yet also saying there are 99 RS sources for it. I just provided a couple of RS sources, helping prove why the content is notable.
That is more what I am asking. Are you challenging the exact term "tornado outbreak sequence" or the content in general? That is actually unclear here. Specifying that would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily the term "tornado outbreak sequence" (which I hopefully have criticized enough already); I am not claiming that none of this content should be on Wikipedia in any form. Some of the content might be reasonable for a stand-alone article (though the various WP:MILL weather bulletins don't count for GNG), other content might be reasonable at the existing article List of United States tornadoes in May 2024. A blank-and-redirect to List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 would still require an AFD discussion. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Walsh90210: I promise, my last reply to you/in this AfD. To note, no a "blanking" does not require an AfD. See Wikipedia:Merging. The only instances for AfD are when it directly meets the deletion policy, specifically one or more of the "reasons for deletion". AfD should be used when the nominator feels the content should not be on Wikipedia at all. Based on what you have described so far, you really should not have used AfD (as I and other editors in here now) have stated. Merge discussions, split discussions, renaming discussions, or just a general talk page discussion were all very much valid options. For a simple term, such as "tornado outbreak sequence", that doesn't meet any of the deletion reasons. The only real actual valid deletion reason you partially mentioned was that it may not meet the notability guidelines. In short, for this specific AfD, that is the only thing really being looked at by editors, whether it passes those deletion reasons.
Now that 3 other editors have also someone stated a similar thing (i.e. keep the content, discussion for "tornado outbreak sequence" should occur elsewhere), I would honestly recommend withdrawing the AfD and then starting either a merge discussion (WP:MERGE), a renaming discussion (WP:MOVE), a split discussion (WP:SPLIT) or just a general talk page discussion to see what other editors think should occur next (Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024). Wikipedia isn't a vote and discussions are based on the merits of comments and reasonings, but hopefully you can also see what others are saying. Very short summary: Your concern is valid and should be addressed, just you happen to pick the one process that isn't for addressing that type of concern. Any of the things I mentioned above are absolutely perfect for discussing that issue. But not a full-on deletion discussion. I won't comment in this again, and you are welcome to keep the AfD open, but as an editor, I would highly recommend withdrawing the AfD and starting one of the four processes above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article seems to be a well-researched, well-sourced, and significant event which definitely does deserve to be an article, let alone content on here at all. /srs
Thanks, NorthStarMI. (Talk in the galaxy) 13:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – That's literally how these types of articles are stringed together. They always have been that way and always will be (probably).
Poodle23 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Auto keep I'm not going to even grace this with an answer. ChessEric 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the continued contempt and refusal by "weather" editors to acknowledge that the concept of a "tornado outbreak sequence" appears to be something they made up is the reason I continue to refuse to withdraw this AFD. If some uninvolved admin wants to close this in lieu of a discussion at some other forum (and starts that discussion procedurally), they can. But I stand by the claim that this (and, other similar) titles should be expunged from Wikipedia. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta break my promise of not replying again for this new comment. “Contempt and refusal” to acknowledge that “we” made it up? Yeah…this is very much a time you should back away from the discussion, since we didn’t make it up ([13]).
Now, if I may have a moment for a joke comment (seeing how it is obvious which way this WP:1AM AfD is going. If “we” made it up, then that would mean the Wikimedia Foundation controls the Storm Prediction Center and National Severe Storms Laboratory. But wait! Since those are U.S. government agencies…that would mean…Wikipedia controls the U.S. government! :O! Conspiracy Theory Time! (Now my fun time is over…I’m actually done here since this is a very much one-against-many AfD). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was one paper 21 years ago that nobody followed up on because the idea that tornadoes 1000 miles apart and 8 days apart are the same "event" is stupid. That's it for external usage of the term. The Google search results are Wikipedia mirrors, Wikipedia-content books, and "fiction" wikis. The Google Scholar results have 23 total hits for "tornado outbreak sequence" (many of which refer to Flint–Worcester tornado outbreak sequence, which is a "tornado outbreak" from a single storm). This. Is. Not. A. Single. Event. and you continue to insist (erroneously) that it is. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I would be sympathetic to this line of argument if it were re-structured as a discussion (RFC, etc.) about splitting events like this instead of a Hail Mary AFD. Penitentes (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if this was made up by wikieditors then why does the nws uses the titles for other sequences? 67.58.252.227 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The event is notable, and looking at both Google Scholar and Google Books, the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence" is used in scientific settings. Most recently, it appears in "An Introduction to Severe Storms and Hazardous Weather" by Dr. Jeffrey B. Halverson, a climate and storm scientist, which was published in 2024 by Routledge. He did write that they are "sometimes called simply an outbreak". The ISBN for anyone who wants to investigate is 978-1032384245. Since the issue does seem to be regarding the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence", there are more appropriate venues than AFD to handle this as other users have noted. CatharticHistorian (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – Many have fleshed out the reasons to keep above, but to keep it short: It's well researched, cites good sources, this should not be the first step to write your grievances, and if you wanna get rid of this one then you should nominate every single other article that uses the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence," most notably Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011, one of the worst sequences in modern history that was 6 days long. Nobody's getting rid of that one, and thus this one is staying too. SouthernDude297 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that getting rid of everything that contains this blanket term would also imply getting rid of other infamous outbreak sequences such as the May 2019 tornado outbreak sequence which saw hundreds of twisters touch down. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:08, 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 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 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. ✗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. I see a rough consensus to Delete here. An editor can create a redirect if you believe that action is appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kiper

AfDs for this article:
Jon Kiper (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 previously deleted last December because Kiper was deemed non-notable. An editor re-created the page today on the basis that Kiper was included in a single poll, which doesn't really address the fundamental lack of notability and is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage (if you even consider it coverage). They also added 5 new sources: a press release from Kiper's website, three clearly WP:ROTM news articles (one just says he filed to run and the other two are about candidate forums he appeared at), and the aforementioned poll. I don't see how any of this overrides the finding of the previous deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort, but the new sources you added seem to be more WP:ROTM coverage from local outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if someone wrote a book and mentioned in it that he deserved a Wikipedia article, he might get on the front page. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Royal Autumn Crest: Really? That's your rebuttal? Do you have any actual reason why Kiper's page should not be deleted? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: I just gave you one, the article I mentioned has nothing but ROTM and incidental references, and yet nobody's nominating that for deletion. Kiper is running for governor of an American state and is being included in debates and other events with the other candidates. Given your incivil tone, I honestly think that your nomination has some kind of ulterior purpose. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Royal Autumn Crest: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're right, I must have an ulterior motive for deleting this random dude's Wikipedia page. And all the other editors who are agreeing with me and voting to delete? I must have paid them to further my nefarious agenda... BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: A "random dude" who has spoken at numerous events and been in polls along the other candidates he's running against who do have articles. Then again, if your argument was stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to your tone. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Royal Autumn Crest: Being included in a poll and speaking at events does not prove notability. That's to be expected of just about any candidate in an election. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians and political candidates. Then again, if your argument was stronger, you wouldn't have to resort to your tone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: Luckily, that's just your opinion and not what is actually expressed regarding Wikipedia's notability guidelines you referenced. Then again, I would expect you to know that if you weren't so busy engaging in personal attacks against the opinions of others.
Coverage of Kiper is not ROTM---there is only one TV station in New Hampshire. Economies of scale. For example, nearly every one of New Hampshire's 400 state representatives is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, despite each only representing about 3,000 people. Consider this in comparison to the deletion of Manny Cid's article, a deletion attributed in part to his being a mayor of a city with "only" 30,000 residents. In New Hampshire, only 6 of 234 municipalities meet that population threshold. Notability must consider unique regional characteristics and local relevance. User @BottleOfChocolateMilk may be too inexperienced with the subject matter to effectively identify notability. (Ironic detail---two of Kiper's known endorsers have Wikipedia articles, and they are both New Hampshire state lawmakers.)
From Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
"The following are presumed to be notable:
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."
"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."
There is substantial news coverage of Kiper from multiple journalists in print and on television, and this coverage has included both trivial mentions as well as Kiper serving as the main topic of the source material. (see article references 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26)
In fact, Kiper has received coverage from NH's sole TV station while other candidates have not---Ballotpedia shows a 6-way Republican primary as well as two independent candidates. Four of the Republicans have not received news coverage, and neither of the two independent candidates have been covered. In a spread of 11 candidates, only 5 have received coverage, including Kiper.
Additionally, of the 11 candidates to be listed on the ballot, only five were included in the Granite State Poll---Kiper among them. Due to contrast in local media coverage alone, Kiper is notable.
Kiper article satisfies the criteria for notability. RainbowPanda420 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RainbowPanda420: Rather than spreading conspiracy theories, you could simply have read my stated reason for removing the poll, which is that it only measured favorability and did not test the Democratic gubernatorial candidates against each other. Also, Kiper's news coverage doesn't become non-ROTM just because the state is small. ROTM means that the coverage is normal and part of a news station's regular, necessitated coverage of events, which is the case here. The argument about state legislators is irrelevant because state legislators are automatically considered notable. I'm not going to bother arguing against every stupid point you made, like how Kiper being endorsed by notable people somehow proves he's notable. Essentially, by your logic, every semi-serious candidate in New Hampshire would be considered notable, which I disagree with. Even ignoring your repeated personal attacks, your essay falls flat. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: It's the height of hypocrisy to accuse someone of personal attacks and then claim their opinion is "stupid". I hope that the closing administrator here can take that into account when assessing this user's viewpoints in this discussion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete candidates are not notable just for being candidates, that is long standing consensus on this site, and he doesn't meet the exception (that their candidacy is LASTING). He would not be otherwise notable, so deletion is the correct result, and easily so. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to the note about GNG applying below, the political campaign stuff specifically doesn't apply and the other articles are not about him, so doesn't meet GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's received coverage from various outlets and he's also received coverage for his non-political work. There are plenty of other individuals on Wikipedia who have done far less and achieved notability and his notability is going to grow over the next several months as he campaigns. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an argument for deletion unfortunately - political candidates are deleted unless they are otherwise notable, as they always receive a certain level of coverage and are rarely notable after the campaign finishes. If the campaign itself had sustained coverage that's a different story, but that is incredibly rare at this level of election. The coverage of his restaurant isn't coverage of him and would not make him notable enough for a Wikipedia if he hadn't ran for office, either. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. WP:NPOL is the relevant guideline and I don't believe the subject meets this standard so he would have to meet GNG. A source analysis would be helpful here. There are two other points, the previous AFD closed as a Redirect, not a Deletion. Secondly, there is subpar behavior on the part of several participants which are snide remarks. If this continues, I will block editors from particpating in this AFD during its duration. Please, this is not how experienced editors talk to each other. Very disappointing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For the record, I would absolutely be in favor of a redirect. As for the question about sources, as has been mentioned previously by several voters, nearly every article cited on the page is WP:ROTM coverage of either the campaign or Kiper's restaurant (and, as others pointed out, coverage of Kiper's restaurant helps establish the notability of the restaurant, not Kiper himself). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. In almost any political year, non notables run for office, for the free publicity it gives them and/or their non-political careers. This is one of those. He has no past history of political office experience. Most of the article is about is his non-political background. The section "Political career" is misleading, as he's had no career in politics other than a zoning board and town council. Attending a college rally as a spectator in the crowd is not notable. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or restore redirect (probably with protection this time). As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. Being included in public opinion polls is not a notability criterion, so the attempt above to claim that he's notable because he polled higher in 2024 than some other guy did in the past doesn't wash — that other guy actually held a notable office, so the fact that he didn't win one particular election is irrelevant because he's more than just an unelected candidate by virtue of having held a different NPOL-passing office. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but absolutely nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given that the origional redirect was reverted, I would support any protection level that would keep that from happening again. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Candidates for a state-wide race should be redirected to the election race, as a usual and appropriate outcome, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. The sourcing does not suggest a GNG pass. I agree that protection should be given to prevent a new article from being created until such time as the subject wins election to an NPOL office. Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 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. ✗plicit 00:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CarReg UK

CarReg UK (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) 00:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've fixed the citation issue. A before search on Google reveals that "CarReg UK" meets the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV especially within the English world. Consider keeping this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazi Culze (talk • contribs) 10:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands - rests on primary and WP:GUNREL sources. Google hits are not a measure of notability, please review WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are occasional articles about personalised number plates which quote the company founder, such as those referenced in the present article and this BBC item. These don't provide the depth of coverage about the company needed for WP:CORPDEPTH; the most detailed that I can see is a 2021 "London Post" item ("CarReg Private Number Plates Celebrating 33 Years!" - link blocked here) but that is advertorial in tone. Overall, fails to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 15:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_25&oldid=1230885734"