Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 17: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:19, 17 July 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< July 16	July 18 >

Guide to deletion

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 delete‎. czar 02:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Lakmal

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

Although subject may be covered by WP:NCRICKET (Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level [...] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof), with a single appearance for a club side more than 20 years ago, there is no indication the subject has received significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline. C 679 10:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. C 679 10:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Comment - either one article is the problem or thousands. And if we isolate individual articles - in both English and non-English speaking countries - this does nothing to solve the problem we've landed ourselves in. Bobo . 17:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't found any WP:SIGCOV confirmation. Tau Corvi (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:52, 28 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 11:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Martinair Cargo destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, , WP:NCORP, and what I'm going to call the "you're joking, right?" test.

Let's take the last of those first: this is a cargo airline. Realistically they're going to fly where ever you pay enough money to send things to. Moreover this is overwhelmingly a list of places where this airline does not fly to, since most of the destinations are listed as "terminated". You're joking, right?

The WP:NOT failure is very clear: this is an exhaustive listing of company services and so fails under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It's also a listing of all services this company offered and so is indiscriminate information under WP:IINFO. I could go on with the WP:NOT failures (original research is a big one BTW) but it would be tiresome.

The WP:NCORP failures are also easily described: there is no evidence at all that a listing of all of the services offered by a cargo company as of April 2020 (or ever, actually) is a notable topic that should be covered in an encyclopaedia. None of the sources in the article meet WP:ORGIND because they all are ultimately sourced solely to the company and are coverage in local/industry press. Taking them one-by-one:

The MartinAir website (which actually doesn't have the information it is used to cite...)
The Best Travelstore website - a travel agent.
A 404 link to a page on the Hong Kong Department of Trade and Commerce.
A 404 link to a page on the website of the Journal of Commerce.

Even as a WP:SPLITLIST this page has to have stand-along notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT which this clearly does not. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Netherlands. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Cargo routes get substantially less interest than passenger routes so I don't think this needs a standalone article or one structured with this kind of table, but Martinair#Destinations should still provide information about the airline's services. However per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam Airlines destinations, this does not violates NOT: it is a narrow, discriminate topic without inappropriate detail; it is not "A resource for conducting business" and so the straightforward listing is not a forbidden catalogue; the fact that it's poorly sourced does not make it original research – no one did their own unverifiable analysis of anything. Reywas92^Talk 14:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our coverage does not depend on whether a topic is popular or not. Which services that are sourced in the article do you think should be merged? The vast majority of the services that the airline actually operates are not sourced at all, I don't see any reliably-sourced content here that can be merged that is not already in the main article about the airline.

Is it verifiable that the services were operated and then "Terminated"? No. Linking to this source and saying that the destinations are now "terminated" is pure OR. As is saying that the services are being operated based on a bare link to this page - you can't see that ANY of these services are actually being run based on that page.

In what way is listing every destination the airline ever flew to discriminate? FOARP (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:

–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. It would be good to have the current destinations in the parent article.Reywas92, if you can pull this off from reliable and current sources: just copy and paste what is left of the destinations. gidonb (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject completely fails to meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of secondary sourcing covering the grouping. Let'srun (talk) 04:48, 23 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 11:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Air Charter destinations

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

Clear failure of WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and plain old common-sense.

Starting with common-sense first: this is, as the name of the airline clearly states, a charter airline - it will fly to whereever you charter it to fly to so long as you pay enough. The destinations it serves are literally the whole world.

Moving on to WP:NOT, this is clearly an exhaustive list of company services and so is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of all the services that this airline possible offered at some point, which makes it indiscriminate information excluded under WP:IINFO. I could also throw in WP:PROMO, WP:NOTGUIDE, and a bunch of other headings that this fails under.

WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by European Air Charter are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. Only one source is cited in the article - the company website - and in reality any other source is going to be industry/local press coverage based on press-reports and company statements.

Even if this is considered a WP:SPLITLIST of the European Air Charter page, it still has to meet the requirements for a stand-alone page per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which this page manifestly does not. And again, a charter airline does not have fixed destinations so what is the point of this listing anyway? FOARP (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Bulgaria. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, numerous WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Linking a previous nomination involving this page:

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the sourcing to meet WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 04:35, 23 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 11:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sta-Prest

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

Sta-Prest does not seem to be notable enough in and of itself to justify a standalone article. Notability seems to largely come from the fact that it's a product of a notable company, Levi Strauss & Co, rather than being a notable product DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Fashion. DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete: there is no reliable secondary source to show its notability! Instant History (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Also, notability is not inherited from the company. I would not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 24 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keemokazi

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

Nothing here to meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Entertainment, Syria, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Video games, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 10 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!} 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability criteria (WP:GNG). The only sources I could find were interviews and press releases, which do not confer any notability. ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:37, 17 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 01:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Rugby League

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

Article has minimal sources and said sources only talk about exhibition games ahead of planed launches of the competition. Google search only bring up the Wikipedia page, Facebook page, and USARL Page which has nothing on it. Fails WP:GNG. Mn1548 (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Illinois, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 10 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!} 07:49, 17 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 due to lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokibird

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

All the coverage in the article is from February 2024 when she left the entertainment company Nijisanji. Beyond that, I've found two reliable sources that do not cover this topic (Siliconera 1, Siliconera 2). Wikipedia's notability criteria discourages articles on people notable for only one event, which this article seems to cover. Most of the content featured in the article also seems to be a content fork of the article Nijisanji. I suggest deleting the article or turning it into a redirect to the Nijisanji article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Entertainment, and Internet. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 10 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!} 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite to remove all references to her previous identity as Selen. Otherwise, redirect to Nijisanji. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 04:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the previous identity User:Hansen Sebastian, I don't see any BLP or privacy issues. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you found two other reliable sources, User:ArcticSeeress , for different events, and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India], then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply? I feel I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you found two other reliable sources - Maybe I should have worded my opening statement better. I only found one reliable source (Siliconera) that talks about the subject beyond the single event, per WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability".

and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India, then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply - I'm not sure I understand this. WP:1E makes no reference to the geographic breadth of the sources. The coverage being international does not change the fact that most of it is about a single event. Also, I could not find sources in any other languages; sources generally also have the original word in Latin writing, so I'm certain you could find them pretty easily by searching "Dokibird". ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 24 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 06:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kris McLaren

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. C 679 07:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. C 679 07:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant achievements either in a very short career. ww2censor (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication or evidence of the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, ww2censor and Let'srun. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As above. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:07, 23 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 Kannada-language television channels#News. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Kannada

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced article. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources on the page to establish significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete I think it not to be deleted. Randomiaedit (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[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 11:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kannada-language television channels#News -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:36, 6 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 06:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Bangla

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

Only press releases. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination. Regards, Arnab. 19:13, 20 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 11:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Gujarati

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

Unsourced article. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, India, and Gujarat. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced to establish any significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:23, 17 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. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Coliseum (West Georgia)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: The page is a very short stub. While it does have a full table, there is nowhere near enough information on the page due to the lack of history and, presumably, lack of coverage on the construction and events at the venue. I actually considered constructing a Wikipedia article for The Coliseum back in November 2023, but I chose Halenbeck Hall instead due to the former's lack of resources. Centennial Center (Georgia College & State) would have certainly been a better choice for making a Wikipedia article. Wjenkins96 (talk)

Comment This page was created without the {{afd2}} tag and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now—I am neutral at this time. @Wjenkins96: For future nominations, please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 06:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Basketball, Volleyball, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Nominator does not cite any policies, and it is a notable venue given its status as a Division I arena and as the region's premier concert and special events venue. This is the Wolves' first season in Division I; if it was deleted, it would be the only Division I arena not to have its own article. Let's leave it up for a bit to give other editors a chance to improve it and fix what's lacking. Tom Danson (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thank you for helping User:Wjenkins96 with this AFD, please follow all of the instructions to the letter next time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete the article, now that they are a Division I school. The article should be expanded. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 11:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I previously studied the arena/facility and I’m not sure this article can really be expanded aside from filler content (i.e. top attended games). The arena is a victim of circumstance if you compare it to another arena like O'Reilly Family Event Center, which opened at around the same time as The Coliseum, yet its construction had far more coverage by the city newspaper. I’m of the opinion that just because a school is Division I doesn’t necessarily mean their arena is entitled to a Wikipedia page. @Tom Danson states that deleting the page would make UWG the only school without a Wikipedia page for their basketball arena, but Queens (NC) does not have one. There are probably close to seventy-five arena articles, perhaps more, that should be deleted because they are stubs and, for whatever reason, cannot be expanded upon. The same goes for most Division II arenas that aren’t of at least a “Start” rating. Wjenkins96 (talk) 17:35, 30 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!} 06:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Guerrero (lineman)

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. - Although subject may meet WP:NGRIDIRON as stated in the last AfD (2011), this does not establish sufficient notability. C 679 06:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. C 679 06:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good deal of SIGCOV. e.g., [1], feature pt 1/ feature pt 2. Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added an initial piece of WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Idaho Statesman feature now in the article is certainly WP:SIGCOV, combined with sources such as [[2]] I'd say there is enough to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun: Did you mean to mention a second source, other than The Idaho Statesman? C 679 11:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add [[3]] in addition to the other Idaho Statesman source. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject meets WP:SPORTSCRIT with WP:SIGCOV from a reliable source. JTtheOG (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Cbl62 and Let'srun. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the ample coverage shown above in addition to this source which was interestingly published the same day this AfD opened. Left guide (talk) 06:23, 23 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 Draftify‎. If editors want to create a redirect from this page title, feel free to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's That Girl (upcoming film)

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, this film should not have an article yet. This article has been draftified by KingArti twice despite the guidelines at WP:DRAFTIFY, and the draftification has been reverted. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural_impact_of_Madonna#Cultural_depictions: and addd a line there; until filming starts and more is known, maybe. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON would be the wisest choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:13, 21 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!} 06:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - It looks like there is consensus that the article should not remain in main space. I think that the previous attempts to send it to draft were made in good faith knowing that filming has not happened, they just didn't follow the guidelines, perhaps unaware of them. That said, I think going to draft space is the best WP:ATD option, mostly because there has now been a slight bit of news that the production might get back on track with some casting. The work that has gone into this article thus far can be built upon in draft space. I think an outright delete would not be the best option because its likely to be further developed in draft space. I do not think a redirect is the best option for the history of this article because the work would likely get buried behind the redirect, and a new draft would be started over, losing the work thus far. Not a problem per WP:PARALLEL per se; just a bit dissapointing to the previous authors. However, I would recommend that a redirect be left behind targeting Cultural_impact_of_Madonna#Cultural_depictions that could be tagged {{R with possibilities}} so that people can find info and at the same time, have a path to develop the draft. (Or target Madonna filmography instead since the mention is already there and wouldn't need to be added.) -2pou (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article stating that the project has re-started has the air of a rumor rather than a fact. It is pretty clear that this isn't well into production or post-production. The article should wait until there is something more concrete to show. Yes, there are lots of sources but most of them are just the Madonna-adjacent hype. Lamona (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Agree it's too soon and the article should wait until something has actually happened. No need to have an article on this ahead of time.Editing84 (talk) 19:11, 5 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keiichi Misawa

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Previously deleted by PROD. C 679 03:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. C 679 03:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 03:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A "small" HTML tag was left unclosed. This has been fixed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough accomplishments or sources for an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia is slightly longer, but it does not provide any significant coverage on him. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:48, 21 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 merge‎ to Infinity on High. czar 02:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller (Fall Out Boy song)

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

The article is based on album reviews for Infinity on High. so it doesn't establish a separate WP:SIGCOV. I searched sources independently and I found two, both from NME,[4][5] one written from Patrick Stump's point of view and the other from Pete Wentz's view. Those sources don't say anything different from what is already said by the sources present in the article. And Infinity on High mentions part of the article's content anyway. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Infinity on High: sources in article only make very brief mentions of the song, and the same goes for the two NME articles the nominator linked. Nowhere near enough for an independent article. I wouldn't oppose a merger if there are any valuable statements included here which aren't already in the album article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG - The article is comprehensive and there is commentary about the song in multiple reliable sources. Slant Magazine, Northern Valley Suburbanite, Alternative Press, Guitar.com. Additionally the song leads with an introduction from Jay Z which garnered much press like in the Los Angeles Times and other major media outlets.Note, as the article's main author I was not notified of this AfD. Bruxton (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past I would have said the same. The article itself is not the issue, but the sources are. They are all about the album, so the critics naturally write about the songs featured in the album from that perspective. For example, "I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers" is also mentioned by two of the sources you included and some sources included at Infinity on High, but that doesn't mean we should have an article for it. This was practically the conclusion reached at previous AFD discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hot Kinda Love, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Let Me Down (Leona Lewis song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Hands. A good example of how this is reversed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Mary (Lady Gaga song), a song that was marignally notable when it was released, but that gained independent notability after an external event created that notability; that is, being used in a TV series and secondary sources discussing it independently from the album. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (into Infinity on High) - it has good info, but I agree with the nom. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here from DYK and I am the editor who approved this article's nomination when it ran on the main page. During the approval process many editors, administrators and readers vetted the article. The article clearly meets our general notability guide. A topic is "notable" if there is enough usable coverage of it in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to write a good encyclopedic article. I think that is what we have here, a good encyclopedic article about the song, based on multiple secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can refer to WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not focus on the SNG - WP:NSONG, according to WP:N A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and t is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I believe that it meets GNG based on the RS. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, they are not a reason to keep the page alone. Some sources are trivial and none of the sources present is about the song alone; they are about the album, regardless on how you'd like to word it. As I said before, just because the sources at Infinity on High#References mention songs like Don't You Know Who I Think I Am?, I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers, or Bang the Doldrums, we have to create their articles based on album reviews that trivially reviewed them from the album's perspective, like it occured with Thriller (Fall Out Boy song).

On the talk page I left the sources review. I don't see the independent, non-trivial, non-passing mentions content that indicate significant coverage that is independent from the parent album. I see sources speaking about the song from the album's context focusing on being named after a Michael Jackson album and inadvertently having a rap intro by Jay-Z, both facts that can be covered by the album's composition section.

As much as you'd like to keep the page, this hadn't had to run on the main page in the first place and you made a mistake by approving an article built on trivialities. Proof of this is the fact that this song hasn't been discussed by critics in subsequent releases thoroughly and it needs to have a background that doesn't even mention the song and has to rely exclusively on trivial album mentions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made seven edits to the article and you have typed 6527 characters (1062 words) in an effort to remove an article that is only 2963 characters (517 words). This AfD time-suck is an example of why I am not as active in deletion lately. You have lost credibility in your source assessment because I randomly looked at #9: you referred to three full paragraphs discussing the song as a passing mention. And #15 you refer to an article which features this song as one of 15 heaviest songs as a passing mention. I am not going to focus on all the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Also I really need to start observing WP:COAL and maybe you should too. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keeping this article and Merge/Redirect it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we can see more participation to come to a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Infinity on High: love the band and the song, but think per WP:NOPAGE the worthwhile content is better saved for the album page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Infinity on High. Talking about editors' statistical contributions rarely impresses a closer, especially when it fails to engage with the nominator's primary argument: all coverage presented or applied seems in connection to the album, not to the song by itself. I made a reasonable BEFORE, and I saw nothing where the song was the sole focus of the piece. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 25 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 01:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Krautil

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

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources are either not reliable or not providing sufficient support to meet WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think are not reliable?LPascal (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the available sources don't demonstrate GNG here. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 24 July 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) 03:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is important enough. Also there are more good references available to add to this article. Here is one: "Fiona Krautil produced a discussion pack on ‘What gets in the way of Women’s Advancement?’ for discussion at the Talent Council and the Succession Council, both of which exist to identify and develop high potential people." [6] Rockycape (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't establish notability and is not WP:SIGCOV. The fact that she produced a discussion pack doesn't really advance notability. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is important but needs more improvements with references and details. my opinion is to keep the article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO with a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Several sources exist but they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (e.g. Sydney Morning Herald), WP:TRADES publications (e.g. Lawyer's Weekly) and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (e.g. official bios). At first I thought her entry in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation might qualify her, but it does not appear to be a "dictionary of national biography" (which would be the Australian Dictionary of Biography, where Krautil does not appear) per WP:ANYBIO criterion 3; not only is it not the national biographical dictionary, it appears to be a bullet-point listing of a few posts and articles by her -- not an encyclopedic entry on her life and significance. (The EASI also appears to accept user-submitted content, potentially making it WP:USERGENERATED). All told, an apparently accomplished individual who does *not* pass notability guidelines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971, your final comment, an apparently accomplished individual who does pass notability guidelines., is in conflict with your argument to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz thanks for flagging, that was a typo—now fixed! Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on those wishing to insert or keep material. Here we have an article about a BLP subject, sourced to interviews, passing mentions, and user-generated content. Only keep assertions in this process so far appear as applicable as personal opinions. Burden is not met. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing useful. Fails ANYBIO, GNG, and AUTHOR. I thank User:Dclemens1971 for their source analysis. BusterD (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - head of government department is sufficient notability, in addition to the sources cited above should be sufficient to keep the article for now. Cavepavonem (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inherent notability with being head of a government department. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion above has already challenged the sources. Can you rebut the analysis showing they do not qualify instead of just asserting they are sufficient? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited assertions of notability which are solely personal opinions aren't usually compelling. A lot of them have been made here. These opinions are neither sourced nor policy-based. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 11 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Iloski

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He hasn't played at the highest level and doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 15:59, 18 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!} 00:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Driver

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. 2 sources provided are primary. Found nothing searching ["Chris Driver" mauritius -wikipedia] LibStar (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Mauritius, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't found RS that could confirm his notability. Tau Corvi (talk) 16:10, 18 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 merge‎ to Bullet voting. There is clear consensus that this shouldn't be a standalone. Many arguments to keep point to the existence of sources but express openness to a merger. There is less clear consensus as to the target; the one I chose is the only one that received substantial support, but this can be revisited via talk page discussion if needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burr dilemma

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

Not notable enough. The page seems to have only one or two citations to a pair of closely-related papers by the same author, both mostly speculative. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be merged with a related article. --Erel Segal (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a brief mention could be added to bullet voting. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the citations in the article aren't the only ones that exist. Though, I wouldn't be against merging it with a related article if a sufficiently related one can be found. Loki (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking through the Google Scholar results Loki has linked to, I could not find any detailed discussion of the Burr dilemma. Many of the articles do not use the phrase "Burr dilemma" and seem to be included in the search solely because they include Jack Nagal's paper in their list of references. Mgp28 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please identify an existing target article when proposing a Merge or Redirect or your argument will be pretty much dismissed as it can't be realized.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I checked through the first dozen articles listed as citing the relevant study [7], and about half of those contain a statement of the type "Nagel (2007) refers to this as the Burr dilemma" or "Nagel offers a critique of this type of voting by [minimal summary]". That is not exactly grand notability but I think it suffices to show a certain amount of uptake and acknowledgement in the field. A merge would certainly work as well though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, if you are seeking a Merge, you have to identify an existing target article. It's not the job of a closer to make a judgment of which article is most suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic_voting#Influence_of_voting_method might work as a merge target, if merged. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are additional citations, yes, but they're very limited (the link above only has 25 results, of which 2 are the main academic articles, and include other irrelevant topics), and don't provide any additional secondary discussion of the original articles. It's basically a non-notable neologism. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem if this is mentioned in another article, either. It doesn't necessarily need to be a merge. But it shouldn't be a stand-alone. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically something thought up by one author. The development of that into an article with wholly uncited 'History' and 'Solutions', tied together into a story with pure WP:SYNTH, is simply WP:OR. The 'Solutions' in particular would remain as OR even if its components are cited, because their assemblage as solutions to this particular problem will remain completely in the mind of the synthesising editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article since it is related to several different pages, and I thought it is more convenient to have a single page linked from all these pages, than to include it in each page. If it cannot stand on its own, then I support, as a second-best option, to Merge it as a subsection into one of the pages that links to it, e.g. Approval voting or Bullet voting or 1800 United States presidential election or Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --Erel Segal (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable thought experiment proposed by a single author and not really covered by anyone else. A merge or redirect doesn't really seem possible given that there are multiple pages with a connection to this topic and all have a tenuous connection at best. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bullet voting: very selectively. There's not enough for a standalone article, but a brief mention in the target will cover the encyclopedic content and be useful for those searching for the term. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bullet voting seems to make most sense here. We basically have just Nagel as the authority (both in the cited sources and what is on the Web) so it's enough for a short section in the target article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very basic but informed introduction to undervoting. I am an election attorney from PA. 38.107.148.75 (talk) 06:05, 28 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. Consensus judged delete per strength of argument (Deeper analysis of sources reveal lack of independence) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faris Mannekkara

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO - sourced to PR/puff pieces.
Earlier draft: Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The editor who wrote this article made a Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara on 08:13, 22 June 2024 and kept it and later made a new article with a slight change in the title, which is a wrong trend and does not prove WP:NBIO. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the editor who made this page did a mistake by creating a draft and then again creating it into the main space, maybe he is a newbie that's why....but if we look at the person's page, he was awarded the community Leader Award from the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation which is a state award from the person's home state which is in Kerala and the Fulbright Foundation’s Global Changemaker Award in 2023 which is a International award given by the US Government which i believe at least qualify the award category of the people's notability guidelines according to the guidelines written in Wikipedia. This guy also has a significant coverage in The Times of India, Economics Times , Ahmedabad Mirror which i believe is considered reliable in Wikipedia. So we have 2 of the 3 basic criteria except the national dictionary thing ....also While reading the content of these articles i don't see any kind of sponsored post written or a disclaimer in the news coverage these are just my analysis. SATavr (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be ignorance / new editor who wrote the draft and then made a new page, but destroyed the first edits in the first draft and deleted it in a completely unrecognizable form, added another person to it and added it to his date of birth and created a misunderstanding because of lack of knowledge?? Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara Difference between revisions [8], Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara 2nd Difference between revisions[9] Spworld2 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree with you. It was a stupid mistake done by this new editor and i think he lacks the patience for it and just wanted to go directly with a shortcut way for publication. Thats why he change the draft content to a different person and he thought we would'nt know lol..... I believe he has learned a lesson not to do it again and i hope he has got to know that things doesnt workout like this. SATavr (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A before search comes up with many sources. (e.g. [1] [2]. Numerous articles featuring the names appear, the most of them in Hindi and English. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PR/churnalism doesn’t count. Both articles are just advertorials for his car company.-KH-1 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These articles discuss his side automobile firm, yet his Wikipedia biography hardly ever mentions this information. The autogenerated nature of these stories is not disclaimed, as is typically the case. The name of the publisher, Sunil Chaurasia, is also mentioned in The Economic Times. His social work is the subject of major pieces that don't appear to be PR or churnalism. They include original research, such as his participation in and thorough coverage of the Sankesh Foundation and the Smiles Foundation. - [3] which is covered in the Ahmedabad Mirror. Another example is his relationship with Shyalash C, his mentor, which isn't mentioned on his Wikipedia page but is confirmed as original research in Punjab Kesari - [4]. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to hear from some more experienced editors about whether sourcing is sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is currently serving as a Global Peace Ambassador under UN75. He has been awarded the Fulbright Award and a State Government Award from Kerala. He meets the basic criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. With regards to his sources the news articles on his social work looks fine but the same cannot be said for some of his articles written about his second-hand car business found in google but considering that his Wikipedia page does not cover his car business, overall, it looks fine to me. Master rollo (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am seriously asking for experienced editors who frequent AFD discussions to review this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only get two pages of Gnews results, most are by "staff" or puff pieces/advertorials. The Fullbright sounds promising, but without sourcing we can't confirm, nor do we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could find was this [10]; GTranslate seems to say it's a staff piece, so likely about as unreliable as the rest of what's already in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest searching by his full name, Muhammad Faris Mannekkara, to find additional articles about him. Also, please check the sources listed on his Wikipedia page. it maybe possible that his articles are ranked poorly in google search engine. that's why less result are been shown but if you try his full name which act like a keyword you will find the news article. Regarding his Fulbright award, it is published in this source as well. [5].

When i am doing the Google Translate for this article - [3] it is referring the person as "she" instead of "He" and is not translating the words in a properly manner. Also the article mentions the author's name as well - Gaurav Tiwari which means it contradict the claim that it was written by multiple staff. Also there aren't any disclaimer that says this story is autogenerated. Blackwatch007 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Faris Mannekkara is currently serving as a Peace Ambassador for the United Nations. His notable achievements include receiving the prestigious Fulbright Award and a State Government Award from the Kerala government. He meets the criteria for WP BIO due to his significant contributions and recognition in his field. There are numerous secondary sources available on Google that document his extensive career in social service, highlighting his impact and dedication. Angiemcc2023 (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reason demonstrated why this person is any more notable than other successful young social worker and businessman in Kerala. Wikipedia is neither a business card nor a linkedin page. I'd be happy to shown I'm wrong, but it looks like there are tens of thousands of "Global Peace Ambassadors." Fails ANYBIO and SIGCOV. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing beyond PR churnalism, does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 29 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!} 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Connections

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

I follow this channel and had the redlink watchlisted, so I was cautiously optimistic to see it turn blue. But unfortunately I don't think it's reached notability yet. The existing sources are all primary links to the channel itself, and a BEFORE search for others turned up only interviews on other YouTube channels I wouldn't consider sufficiently reliable (e.g. [11][12], a one-paragraph entry at [13] that's borderline for SIGCOV, and short summaries of videos like [14][15] that either aren't SIGCOV or aren't RS or both. Sdkb ^talk 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, and Technology. Sdkb ^talk 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I'm a fan of his youtube channel, but it's hard to find things about it. This seems like a RS [16], a few hits in The Verge which is a RS [17], [18] and this which I think is also a RS [19]. We probably have at least enough for a basic article about this person, or the youtube channel he hosts. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also a fan of his YouTube channel but the sources provided thus far are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately weak delete. The DigitalCameraWorld source above is the only one that qualifies for a full unit of SIGCOV, while the rest don't quite meet the mark, even when combined. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom - I don't think his channel has reached notability yet, no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draft - in addition to the sources provided by Oaktree b, I was able to find a mention in Consumer Reports [20] - but it is the exact type of "passing coverage" that does not impart notability. From what I can see the only source that imparts any notability is the Digital Camera World article, which covers a video by Alec in depth (rather than just mentioning it in passing - as the Verge, Consumer Reports, etc do). I would be interested in seeing the borderline The Physics Teacher coverage (just for curiosity) but I trust sdkb that it is borderline (the section of the journal that it's in - Websights - confirms that it's likely borderline). I have no opposition to moving to draft space or userspace if someone wants to "take care of it" for the chance further coverage is either found. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:41, 30 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravindra Lakmal}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Martinair Cargo destinations}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European Air Charter destinations}}