Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 28	June 30 >

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. ✗plicit 13:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gerald Branch

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

The current content of this article is a complete duplicate of Joseph Branch (Florida politician). The following statement is all about Joseph Branch (Florida politician), not his son:

assassinated November 22, 1867
a state legislator in Florida at the age of 21, worked as a lawyer, and had a plantation in Desha, Arkansas
married Mary Polk

Evidence here: in that article, says:

Joseph Branch is son of Joseph Branch and Susan Simpson O'Bryan
His uncle is John Branch
He married Annie Pillow Martin and Mary Jones Polk; by Polk, he has a son Joseph
Children also include Lucia Eugenia Branch
state legislator in Florida at the age of 21 and had a plantation in Desha, Arkansas

Note the point 2-4 above meets the content of Joseph Branch (Florida politician). GZWDer (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is potential for conflation here. @GZWDer: Can you provide a proper citation for the link above rather than just a bare URL? There appears to conflicting records and a dearth of reliable sources on this, but this source states that Joseph Branch, the Florida Attorney General, was a brother of Lawrence O'Bryan Branch and was "murdered by renegades" in Arkansas in 1866 [sic]. Mary Polk Branch in her memoir writes she was married to "Col Joseph Branch", "a member of the legislature at twenty-one, and president of a bank", on Nov. 29, 1859, and that Colonel Branch was shot to death by a drunken Doctor Pendleton in November 1867. However, a genealogical entry later in the book states that a "Joseph Gerald Polk" is the son of Joseph Branch and his second wife Mary Polk Branch, and this son was "a member of Legislature of Florida at twenty-one, a successful lawyer and planter in Desha bounty, Arkansas, where he amassed a very large fortune. He was assassinated on his plantation November 22, 1867." --Animalparty! (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tricky. Per the collection of his papers, Branch the attorney general may have died in 1864. There is no indication of a Joseph Branch II in the list of every state legislator in Florida. Curbon7 (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has a single source ("Memoirs of a Southern Woman") that is written and published by the Branch family - self written family histories are not great sources. As Curbon7 points out The People of Lawmaking in Florida 1822 – 2019 lists just one "Branch, Joseph" who was the Legislative Council in 1841 and Attorney General, 1845-1846 so is Joseph Branch (Florida politician). The memoirs say "Joseph Gerald Branch the third, Joseph Branch second, was a member of Legislature of Florida at twenty-one" but I can find no mention in the newspapers. A search of the newspapers found that a Colonel Joseph Branch was shot in Arkansas 1867 this and this but no mention of Florida, politics or Gerald as a middle name so cannot be linked to "Joseph Gerald" son of Joseph Branch (Florida politician). A search of the newspapers found that a Joseph H. Branch from Tallahassee, Florida did die 1864 - see this. KylieTastic (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per FamilySearch the one died in 1864 is his nephew. i.e. Joseph Branch (Florida politician) cited Joseph Branch Papers, 1830-1869, but the "Joseph Branch" mentioned there is his nephew. GZWDer (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a poorly worded nomination (the text of the nominated article isn't a "complete duplicate"), but the article is entirely based on a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and, as Curbon7 points out, only Joseph Branch the attorney general shows up in the list of Florida legislators, eliminating a claim to notability under WP:NPOL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:04, 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. ✗plicit 13:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Shirazy

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

I see nothing that persuades me that he passes WP:BIO, nor WP:NPROF, nor WP:NPOLITICIAN, nor WP:NATHLETE. A draft of this name already exists. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of resume-material involving his works, miscellaneous papers, work experience, and poetry writing, but nothing that seems to definitively secure his notability. Closest thing might be his (failed?/successful?) candidacy for the assembly. The recent COI activity doesn't help either. GuardianH (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be part of a cross multiple wiki spamming exercise by the creating editor. There is a possibility that this is self promotion, whcih I rate currently at a 0.75 probability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing mentioned in this article suggests encyclopedic notability. I concur that it looks a lot like self-promotion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:30, 6 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!} 23:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia's Kitchen

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

An orphan article. Getting 2 reviews in the Melbourne press really isn't a big claim for notability as per WP:AUD. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Cambodia, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rodell, Besha (2022-08-30). "Cambodia's Kitchen brings a taste of Cambodia to the CBD". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend magazine and in The Age here. The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet."
2. "Australia Travel: Best places to eat in Melbourne". The New Zealand Herald. 2022-11-20. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls."
3. Monssen, Kara (2022-11-16). "Cambodia's Kitchen review 2022: Chinatown newcomer behind city's great-value lunch spot". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder."
4. Sweet, Frank (2023-06-30). "Melbourne's best hot pots". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast."
5. Curran, Libby (2022-08-18). "Cambodia's Kitchen Is the New CBD Restaurant Paying Homage to Classic Cambodian Fare". Concrete Playground. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf."
  - Here^{Internet Archive} is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
    1. Its editor is Samantha Teague.
    2. "Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
    3. "All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
    4. "Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
    5. "Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
    6. "All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
    7. "We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
    8. "Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
    Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press (1), Johns Hopkins University Press (1), Routledge (1 and 2), Taylor & Francis (1), and Text Publishing (1).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cambodia's Kitchen to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 6 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) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources mentioned in the comment above are more than enough for notability, easily passes GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Arsène Lupin#Overview. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Balsamo

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible merge/redirect to Arsene Lupin or Maurice Leblanc, but not sure which. All information is unsourced too, so I am not sure it would be a valuable merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scholar finds this book about Hayao Miyazaki's earlier works, which included one film adaptation of Lupin. I don't see an obvious way to access that work and see whether substantial coverage of this character might be present. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like there is a viewable preview of that book here. The coverage of the character in it is extremely minimal - basically mentioning her when describing the plot of the original story that The Castle of Cagliostro was loosely adapted from. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for confirming that. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arsène Lupin#Overview, where she is briefly mentioned. The current article is completely unsourced, and searching is not bringing up anything but brief mentions in plot summaries, such as in the book discussed above. Since there is no "character list" for the Lupin series, and the original story she appeared in does not seem to have its own article, redirecting to the main page where she is briefly mentioned appears to be the best viable target. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arsène Lupin#Overview per Rorshacma. This doesn't have enough sources but it is at least verifiable, with a valid redirect target, per WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:48, 9 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 13:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Punay

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

The two articles provided here as sources are not enough for WP:GNG and all remaining sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Guatemala. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not established. C 679 04:06, 6 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 Audiovisual archive. Owen× ☎ 17:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video logging

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

Bereft of encylopedic content, while the term is cleary genuine it's also pretty self explanatory (that video logging is the logging of video, thank you wikipedia). Reads somewhere between a how to guide and veichle for spam. Article isn't serving any purpose not met by Digital asset management, Content management etc. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of want to Keep just because Vlogging exists, can be called video logging as well, and this seems needed for distinguishment against that. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My first thought was to redirect to "vlog", but that's a different concept. This is categorizing videos, which seems self-explanatory and not really needing an article. This is at best a DICDEF that's too long. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: Still think if this is deleted, “Video logging" redirects to “Vlog" Hyperbolick (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Audiovisual archive This seems like the proper place for an article to redirect to; though we certainly aren't logging physical tapes in plastic markers with magic marker regularly by any means, this fits right into the first half of creating an AV archive for sure, though most of it is probably automated these days. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Audiovisual archive. I like Nate's solution but I don't think there's any reason to merge this content, per nom's deletion rationale. -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 12 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 Agha G. A. Gul. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evernew Pictures

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

Fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth. On a related note, this film production company produced some films that do not even meet WP's standards of notability. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul. I agree with Saqib's assessment. This is a company so it has to meet WP:NCORP criteria. Unfortunately, the coverage is trivial and mostly related to Evernew Studios which is a notable topic. I still think there might be some offline coverage which we are missing in a simple before so please redirect it to Agha G. A. Gul for now. 2400:ADCC:144:8200:8483:7158:CABA:36A (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evernew Studios or Agha G. A. Gul, both of them are notable topics and already have reliable references. I agree both with Saqib's above nomination and the other above Wikipedia editor's suggestion of a Redirect...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul as per WP:ATD - this company does not appear to meet our notability criteria so a redirect is the best option. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:24, 4 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 per consensus. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A&B Productions

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

Clearly fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asif Raza Mir - the coverage is mostly related to its founder Asif Raza Mir so redirect for now. Fails WP:NCORP due to trivial coverage. 202.47.46.115 (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asif Raza Mir, I agree...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asif Raza Mir: It is sometimes difficult to find the notability of film or related production company if not finding sources that trivially mentions them. In this cases it isn't different and most times, we would term them inherited (from the film being produced or produced from the company). Following that's the article doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT as it's lacking many information to ascertain notability, hence redirect to the founder until reasonable sources that meets WP:RS are found. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asif Raza Mir as WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 4 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 Cinéfondation#Prize winners. Consensus is against retention. As the film's article does not exist, a redirect thereto is not possible. Should that article come about, this can be retargeted as needed. Star Mississippi 16:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chidananda S Naik

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

Some information on this guy: Chidananda made the sixteen minute short film Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know... in four days at the end of his one-year television course in the Film and Television Institute of India. The 16-minute film is based on a Kannada folk tale about a rooster not coming causing the sun not to rise in a village. It won the La Cinéf award at the Cannes Film Festival. This is the main content on doesn't warrant an article here. Anything (Essentially, just the award) you need about him is already online.

Almost every single source on the internet about Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know says short film wins Cannes award and nothing else. This is a case of WP:TOO EARLY. Why not wait till he directs feature films?

I am acting in good faith because two users see User_talk:Mushy_Yank#Notability_2 and second opinion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Does one film guarantee notability? claims that this person does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people).

The critical reception section is a stretch, no matter which Indian film won in Cannes, the comment would be the same. Another source about this guy's short film from Variety: [1] (again, only about the award). This AfD is a complete waste of time (caused by undo of redirect to Cinéfondation saying take it to AfD [2]) DareshMohan (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinéfondation#Prize winners: A redirect seems like a good ATD so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#1. The significant award/honor here is 1st Prize - Premier Prix award from Cinéfondation, 2024 Cannes Film Festival, where the film was judged among 18 films globally. The award is well know and has it's own article on Wikipedia, Cinéfondation. There is coverage from multiple published sources that are also reliable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fiercely opposed to keep if everyone agrees he is notable but I think it should be made clear that 1) the award itself has no page, it's the foundation that promotes it which has 2) it is technically the film (a student film) that receives the award, not its director. You don't think that if we decide ANYBIO applies in this case, we would establish a precedent setting the bar extremely low? I do. I don't think that WP:DIRECTOR appplies anyway~~, coverage on the film being insufficiently significant imv.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) On second thoughts "unstriking" (virtually) my comment: I do consider that "coverage on the film (is) insufficiently significant imv." for the director to meet WP:DIRECTOR requirements. Not unsignificant nor trivial and mentioning a significant award, yes but not enough at least for WP:DIRECTOR, I should think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The foundation is notable for the award it gives out. It was started in 1998 and the award has been given annually since then. The award, technically, belongs to the director for being the brains behind it, which is why the director's name is mentioned in the 2024 Cannes Film Festival and Cinéfondation article instead of the producer's name. Nandi Awards is only significant in Andhra Pradesh, whereas Cinéfondation brings coverage from Variety (magazine) as well as Hindustan Times, which would you consider a more popular award now?

Coverage on the film being insufficiently significant? Here are some reliable sources that explicitly mention the film's name in the title: [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Expecting a breakdown, analysis or a review for a film that has only been screened once(AFAIK) is absurd. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some articles that are indeed significant in the links you provided here. ~~Not commenting on the rest, if I may~~. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But since you kindly asked me (not sure the question was meaningful or not ironic): yes, obviously I find the Nandi way more "popular" than the Cinéfondation premier prix, yes. That's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. Here, the fact that this is a student short film is for me, so far, an issue, and I still favour a redirect, but as I said, not fiercely opposed to keep, especially in light of the sources you ~~added~~ presented here (most of them also being on the page, except if I am not mistaken, the article in the New India Express and DDNews). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) (edited my comment for clarification as my comment may have been misleading . Also adding that it's very likely that among the journalists or papers who mentioned the award and interviewed the director, not many if any at all have seen the film; and for me, this too is a problem; basically the question remains: can ANYBIO apply if the award, significant or not, is attributed to the work? Can WP:DIRECTOR apply in a case where coverage, although somehow significant as it addresses the film, is only mentions of the plot, the award, and in some sources of a few facts about production? Most sources are indeed generally reliable, although various articles are not being bylined, which I personally don't mind but is regularly pointed out negatively when it comes to Indian film, some users considering such coverage unreliable as a rule (I don't :D). I am still not sure, and still consider a redirect to be the best outcome. Maybe it's absurd to require further analysis of the work but can we really bypass that requirement just because the film has only been screened in Cannes, and not by the journalists who wrote the article, and is short? Not sure. Sorry for the cascading clarifications. I don't think I will change my mind from now, nor positively nor negatively. Even if one considers that it's the film after all that's notable and the article about the director is only here as a form of substitute for the article about the short, I am not certain that the premier prix at Cinéfondation, although significant, can be considered a major award nor that the coverage is substantial enough. Maybe the said coverage cannot be more than what it is now for obvious reasons, maybe, but still. I've done, again, some further searching and there's also coverage in French: https://lepetitjournal.com/inde/actualites/triomphe-indien-au-festival-de-cannes-2024-386190 or this blog; https://www.inde-cineskope.com/2024/05/cannes-2024-payal-kapadia-et-linde.html Good luck.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? There are many reliable sources for the subject and the film apart from the the six I have cited.

The coverage that follows from someone meeting an additional criteria is just a bonus. Most Olympic athletes, older MLAs, sports personalities, politicians and judges do not have significant coverage. There are many articles with only database entries and primary sources as references simply because they meet an additional criteria and are presumed to be notable. The basic criterion that has been followed until now is that if an award has a standalone article and someone has received that award, they are presumed to be notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? is a very undue, rude and aggressive comment. I've searched for sources extensively THREE OR FOUR TIMES. Just look at my comments (and at 2 other venues) and presented sources myself (you're welcome). Again, the award has no page, and the film received the award, not him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that a regional award is more popular than Cinéfondation and that there is no substantial coverage when the coverage is not even required, then I cant help you. Ciao Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been posted on Talk:Cannes Film Festival, Talk:2024 Cannes Film Festival, Talk:Cinéfondation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film festivals task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards to draw a wider range of editors for discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So he won a sidebar competition at Cannes. The film might be notable, this individual isn't. Redirect to the film's article, if it's deemed notable. This is too early to have a wikipedia article for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear pass of ANYBIO #1. If I were able to assess and read the non-English language sources, I'm confident there would be a clear NBASIC pass as well. ANYBIO doesn't require significant coverage of the person outside of the work, by the way - that is pretty much the whole point of that criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Here is the sources in Indian language [9] which also just say that the film won the award. So is the short film notable or him notable -- I would say the short film maybe. DareshMohan (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I would agree with you, DareshMohan. ANYBIO clearly states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (emphasis mine), while all sources mention that the film received the award. And while I would certainly admit that for a student short film the award is significant, I wouldn't transfer that significance to the person directly. Even regarding the film, it is judged as a student film and I personally am reluctant to consider that in itself the award (although clearly an achievement) is enough to make the short notable (the notability for films is more strict and the award needs to be considered a major award, which this one is not imv). As for the director, even less so, then. Of course, he directed it, but then WP:DIRECTOR would be the relevant guideline. And see my view about that guideline applying or not, above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you both (Mushy Yank and DareshMohan) are misreading WP:DIRECTOR, the point of which is that when the works attributable to a particular creator are notable, that makes their creator notable. This is a major, and well-documented, limitation to the WP:NOTINHERITED principle, which continues to apply in the other direction - the non-notable films of a notable director are not necessarily notable.

What is more, your interptetation of ANYBIO #1 does not, I think, reflect the general understanding. While for collective works, the distinction betweent the work and its creators may be significant for notability. However, the idea that the sole author of a book that wins a major award could somehow not therefore be notable does not reflect a coherent reading of NCREATIVE, in my view (which I believe is the general one). A film of this kind, where the director is universally regarded as its creator, follows the same logic as a book IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to insist, but I think we've read WP:DIRECTOR quite correctly: our point is precisely that we don't think (at leat in my case) the evidence proving that that short student film is notable (work, singular, not plural in the present case) is compelling either, given the type of coverage or and the nature of the award it received. I've already repeated that various times. As for ANYBIO, feel free to change the wording or phrasing of the guideline if you think it's too limitative, but I've quoted the current one and it's pretty clear. The person has to receive the award and the said award (concerning persons, obviously) needs to be both well-known and significant. If you think that evidence shows that the work is clearly notable according to the guideline, let's agree to disagree. If you think that the award received by a film can be automatically transferred to its director and that this is the general and correct view, sure, I understand but that's not what the guideline says. If you think that that award is well-known and significant, sure, maybe, regarding student short/medium length films but certainly not for the notability of a "director" (who was still a student when he received it). That is for me setting the interpretative bar slightly too low but as I said above, not fiercely opposed to keep this if everyone agrees this inclusive interpretation is acceptable and the coverage about the film show it's a notable work. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reasonable doubt that Sunflowers... is a notable film. It clearly meets WP:NFILM #3, and I have seen for myself the multiple reliable sources documenting this claim to notability.

And I will say again: the point of WP:CREATIVE, whether for authors or filmmakers, is to offer guidance for the atypical case documented at WP:INHERITED - people who are specifically responsible for a notable creative work, whether as authors or as film directors, are therefore notable. That's what a significant or well-known work is - a notable one - and there is no consensus to change this well-established standard to require more than one work for this principle to apply. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: I never said that more than one work is needed to meet WP:DIRECTOR nor did I mention WP:INHERITED myself (I never do). That's not my point. One notable work is enough imv. But, allow me to repeat myself one last time, WP:NFILM#3, that you mention, requires a MAJOR award, that's the word in the guideline. Major. Again, the Cinéfondation Premier prix is certainly an achievement for a student film but I wouldn't call it a major award. (See this, for example). And I find it therefore quite reasonable, even considering the existing coverage, to doubt whether that student short film is notable enough according to the requirements of Wikipedia. If it is not, a redirect for its student-director seems to be, so far, the kindest outcome imv. If everyone thinks it is, feel free to create the page about that short student film. I for one, would wait for its director to become a professional one and/or for the short film to attract in-depth attention from reviewers who might have watched it. But that's just me. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and discussion is continuing up to the time of relisting. We have basically two very different interpretations of policies and that is not easy to reconcile.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have invited Martineden83, Οἶδα, Bearcat, Extended Cut, The One I Left, Zoolver Laurenschneider210, Jenny8lee, Sj and Fuzheado to draw a wider range of informed but uninvolved editors to this discussion as it has been relisted without any further comments. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The discussion above seems rather like hair-splitting to me. The question of whether the award is given "to the film" or "to the filmmaker" is a moot point that has nothing to do with notability vis-à-vis film awards, for starters — regardless of whether the award is technically "for the film" or "for the filmmaker", the filmmaker is still the one who has to walk up on stage to accept it and give a thank-you speech either way, because the film is not itself a sentient entity, so that argument is introducing a meaningless distinction. For another thing, the question of whether our article about Cinéfondation is "about the award" or "about the organization that presents the award" is also a meaningless and irrelevant distinction, because you could make that same "how much is or isn't this article about the event vs. about the organization that presents the event" argument about every single article we have about any event at all, so that's just not a meaningful point of debate when it comes to questions of whether an award makes its winners notable or not. And finally, the award was presented at Cannes, which is one of the most famous and notable film festivals in the world.
To be fair, not all of the films or directors listed in the Cinéfondation article have articles yet, but that's also not a notability issue — any of them can, and will, have articles if and when somebody gets around to writing articles about them. And there is additionally no rule that filmmakers always have to have made feature films before they become eligible for Wikipedia articles — short films do tend to be harder to write good, GNG-compliant articles about, since they tend to get less coverage than feature films do, but films are not automatically non-notable just because they're short, and can absolutely still pass notability criteria (such as winning notability-making awards) just the same, so "short vs. feature" doesn't impact notability criteria for films or their makers either: that's a question of whether you can support the article with decent sources or not, and not a question of the film's length itself.
So, really, what it comes down to is whether the article features enough WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to properly establish that notability criteria have been met — and while I'd suggest replacing footnote #7 with a secondary source instead of a primary one, all of the other six footnotes are just fine and absolutely add up to enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – First place short at a sidebar is not significant coverage of the director. The award guarantees a future slot higher up in the Cannes program for a first feature, but until then the existing coverage pertains to the film. If we were discussing a winner of the Caméra d'or, Prix Un Certain Regard or Palme d'Or du Court Métrage this would be different. But it feels like we've gone several notches down and called it a major award because it's Cannes adjacent. An article for the film would however pass WP:GNG. Οἶδα (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Director's Fortnight, the Semaine de la critique and the Queer Palm, all of which are clearly notability-making awards presented at Cannes, are also sidebars rather than "the main competition" — so if the word "sidebar" were any kind of notability extinguisher on its own, at least half of all the film articles we have whose notability is Cannes-derived would have to be deleted. The distinction that matters when it comes to Cannes is festival vs. market, not festival main program vs festival sidebar program. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My contention was that the Cinéfondation sidebar is particularly eclipsed by the official selection and other sections. I do not believe first place at Cinéfondation is a major award conferring significant coverage to the director themself. Unfortunately I do not believe this matter will be resolved any deeper than the 'hair-splitting' discussion that already played out above. So I will resign the issue to my vote. Οἶδα (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the notability guideline page for BLPs does not mention anywhere that significant coverage is a requirement for someone to pass WP:DIRECTOR or WP:ANYBIO. I believe we have more content about Chidananda S Naik than about the short film that won the award, so redirecting would only result in the loss of content, leaving us with a very short stub article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are merely repeating the discussion Mushy Yank already developed above. Reply there. Οἶδα (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Creating an article for the film and redirecting to that seems reasonable Laurenschneider210 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an inclusionist, this seems fine, as does a rdr to the film for now. Either way, it could certainly be fleshed out with more information as it exists. – SJ + 10:10, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan notable senior army officers

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

There is no single reference in the article, there is no proof that the listed people are notable. This name of the article was at first List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers (see page history) and this name was derived from the List of British generals and brigadiers which has plenty of references. Hamwal (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference, slowly. I do not understand why editors consider deleting material that provides a basis for further research. What needs to happen with this article is (1) that references need to be imported from the linked articles, especially for the most senior officers; and (2) possibly the large list of major-generals and brigadiers which do not have articles needs to be trimmed. There will be lots of material at associated army and SL war articles which can be imported to provide the necessary references. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the first name of the article 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' was better than the current name; references must be added to this article like List of British generals and brigadiers article has so many references. Hamwal (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fulfills WP:NLIST and the inclusion criterion is well-defined per WP:SALAT. AfD is not cleanup, this list just needs some references. Broc (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Buckshot06:, @Broc:, Please consider to change the article's name to 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' which is now active as a redirect to the article, 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' - this name is more suitable than the current name. Hamwal (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. Broc (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. The word "notable" should not be in the title. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be notable!! Buckshot06 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is notable for research on the Sri Lanka Army and also the civil war of Sri Lanka. 37.111.200.67 (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz:, I am the nominator of the deletion of the article is saying that the article must be kept and I am withdrawing the deletion nomination. Hamwal (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamwal, it is fine for you to withdraw your nomination but we don't delete AFDs except for techinical reasons like if there is more than one AFD started for the same article. This is due to be closed soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 6 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!} 05:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Horn

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

Article only has a profile citation and nothing else could be found in Google. Shinadamina (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Rugby league. Shinadamina (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Single citation, fails notability. Mn1548 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Owyhee River. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Dragon Canyon

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

This would appear to really belong in the Owyhee River article rather as a stub. Qwirkle (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Owyhee River: Does not meet WP:NATFEAT as it does not have information beyond location and name. The single source included in the article is not reliable. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Assassin's Creed characters. I wish more participants had spoken up since the last relisting but they didn't and I'm going to close this as a Merge. As several participants stated, they would prefer this to be a generous Merge rather than a superficial one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haytham Kenway

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

GAR isn't the right place to judge notability, according to most people. So, starting with WP:BEFORE, the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review, G4t7 dead source, [10] [11] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content, IGN listicle with trivia content, another IGN's listicle, listicle with a short content, dualshockers' listicle with trivia content, Gamepro's listicle, Gamerevolution's listicle with short content, just a short interview, Comicbook source isn't reception at all, Heavy source contains only trivia quote content, while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character. Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed. Nothing has changed since then. Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless. The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others. Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability.

DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD? It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason. In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid. Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability. Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception. While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why I couldn’t find it and after some digging I remembered it wasn’t even nominated for deletion. A user simply turned it into a redirect without seeking consensus first. The issue was resolved on my talk page, where the discussion can still be found here. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring, this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd argue it's primary since it's an interview with a person directly affiliated with the development of the game and the character in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - his standalone notability is dubious and there's a clear and obvious WP:ATD to target him to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a lot of the reception is trivial, and while one could argue it helps re-examine the series antagonists it doesn't have much substance beyond that and even then it's shaky. Importance outside the parent work just isn't indicated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific commentary on the sourcing situation would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - Discounting the primary sources and sources that are just trivial coverage, the sources currently in the article are largely reviews or coverage of Assassin's Creed 3 or the series as a whole, that just discuss Haytham as part of that larger review/discussion. These kinds of sources lend themselves much better for the subject to be discussed in a broader topic, in this case the character list, than spun out into a separate article. Searches are bringing up more of the same - smaller amounts of coverage as part of the broader discussion of the game and its plot as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rorshacma. These are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character when discussing the game. That reflects how this should be covered on Wikipedia, by mentioning the character in the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lee Vilenski. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks likely to merge, but even if it does merge, it should be a "generous" merge that keeps most of the content. This is for sure a borderline case but the GamesRadar article linked above, while not having tons of content on Haytham, establishes him as an important character as far as AC3 is concerned, and AC3 sold a zillion copies. Yes, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED, I saved the link, but I think that it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness in a case like this where we know this character is a big deal and the game is a big deal and the bigness of the deals are linked. SnowFire (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this argument is very much arguing that notability is inherited from AC3. Just because Kenway's important to AC3 doesn't mean he's important overall. An equivalent argument to this would be arguing that something like Zamazenta is instantly notable because it's an important part of Pokemon Shield, which sold a lot of copies, despite the fact Zamazenta has absolutely no claim to notability. I do agree that this should be a decently large merge, given most of the relevant content in this article isn't at the list entry. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided between those editors advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge. I find the Merge argument stronger but maybe those who believe it should be Kept can make a better argument about the sources being adequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. C. Douglas

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

I actually did WP:BEFORE, but unfortunately these are the only reliable sources I found were his interview about his voice for Albert Wesker [12] [13], which is not WP:SIGCOV. Trivial mentioned sources like this [14] aren't helpful for GNG. Aside from that, the article has a lot of unreliable sources, COI and OWN issues by the actor itself. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to pass the subject-specific notability guideline of WP:NACTOR due to his numerous roles in notable works of media, and prolific acting career. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I suggest the nominator familiarize themselves with WP:NACTOR which is on the generous side. Douglas easily has enough roles in significant productions to qualify. The borderline cases for NACTOR are like "one moderately successful role, no sources at all on personal life, some minor stuff nobody cares about," which this topic is light-years ahead of. SnowFire (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even NACTOR aside, multiple sources write about things that Douglas posts, like this. As for COI and OWN issues, the former is easily rectified by any one other editor verifying whether there's NPOV issues or not; the latter, I don't see anything suggesting Douglas is edit warring, at least not recently. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if the article is messy it meets WP:NACTOR, and possibly GNG (albeit weakly) per Cukie. The conflict of interest is better off bringing up at the associated noticeboard. λ NegativeMP1 08:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I apologize for not being familiar with WP:NACTOR. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:54, 29 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 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant

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

Unless this is the sewage plant that made the Ninja Turtle, I can see no reason for there to be a stub article for a wastewater treatment plant. I've done a bit of news search and there doesn't seem to be anything spectacular or of note regarding this plant, other than it opened on the birthday of a city/government official. It may have been the largest STP in Asia at one point. Still, I can only find 2 articles that mention that, one in 2014 (and even that article is mostly hidden behind a paywall) and one saying that a scheduled STP in Delhi would surpass it in all areas. Lindsey40186 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 29 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!} 01:19, 6 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!} 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Press Your Luck scandal. I see a rough consensus that these two articles should be Merged. I've seen hundreds of AFDs at this point and have never seen one closed as a "reverse merge" as the target article would have to be tagged, the creator notified and be included in an AFD nomination. Once this AFD is closed, the scope of a Merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Larson

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

WP:BLP1E. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Press Your Luck scandal. Per ~~WP:BLP1E~~WP:BIO1E there should not be two separate articles. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as all of the reliable sources and verifiable content at Michael Larson has already been incorporated into Press Your Luck scandal. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep BLP1E does not apply. He is not alive. And the article has substantial information about him beyond his winning strategy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An additional comment: Since Jax 0677 has decided in a somewhat idiosyncratic way to express skepticism about the above (see edit history of this page), I'll note that the article has a whole section titled "Later life, death, and legacy." JoshuaZ (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Changing opinion to redirect. Fourthords's comments below are convincing. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the nominator meant WP:BIO1E, which does apply. Also, all of this article's verifiable content (including the 11% not stemming from the PYL event) is already to be found at the article about the overall event—Press Your Luck scandal. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Crime, Games, Florida, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Press Your Luck scandal, if only because there's little left to merge. The history may be useful for attribution purposes, though, and keeping the history around is useful for tracking how we wrote about this subject years in the past. As for Larson's article, it's now redundant to the scandal article. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I mean, it was already merged in practice, but still. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I am OK with a merge or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever is done here, please remember to move Michael Larson (disambiguation) to the title, Michael Larson, when this is all over. BD2412 T 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Michael Larson would continue to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, unless you want to open an RFD. 162 etc. (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and redirect Press Your Luck scandal to Michael Larson. (This concern is slightly lessened if the article moves from its current POV title, but that's being argued in a RM currently, and I'd still prefer the reverse merge.) It doesn't make much sense to have two separate articles, yes, but this is the more relevant article and the better title. This is not a BIO1E case, this was actually the more notable article if only one is kept - see arguments in the earlier RM discussion. Many sources discuss the topic simply by Michael Larson's name and not by the episode or by "scandal", e.g. [15]. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Press Your Luck scandal. Just finished reading the scandal article. All the pertinent information is there. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing seems fine, it's in older sources but talks about this person. Bit of a scandal later in life, but he's notable for the win on the show and what happened after. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Press Your Luck scandal back in, per SnowFire. A RM to move "Michael Larson" to "Press Your Luck scandal" was closed as "not moved". This whole "write a content fork, then nominate the old article for deletion" strategy feels like an end-run around that RM. Sceptre (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the extant article was and is an over-detailed pseudo-biography containing original research and un- and mis-sourced claims about someone notable for only one event, I began writing the event-based article on or before 2 Feb 2023 (per the cited sources in the original version of the article. The request to move the BIO1E was instigated at 15:54 UTC on 22 March 2024 by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), by which time I had been writing the event article for at least thirteen months, even saying in that very discussion, I began writing a Press Your Luck scandal from whole cloth to ensure 100% citation to reliable sources. I'm seven (of 22) sources deep in it right now, and was probably going to spend another month or so before ready to bring live. Furthermore, this AFD was begun by Jax 0677 (talk · contribs). Given all this, I'm unsure how any involved editor can be so plainly accused of what you claim. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sourcing is fine and meets our inclusion guidelines. Coverage is over a wide enough time WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply. But I think the material is better covered by us as an event article rather than a BLP. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 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 merge‎ to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team

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

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is also not a directory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge now that a target article has been created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, while I appreciate the work put in by jweiss11, I don't think that the combined article meets the WP:NSEASONS due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could expand the scope of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 to include 1919 and perhaps some or all of the 1920s. I think Pacific may have played rugby at some pint between 1900 and 1918, a la 1906–1917 Stanford rugby teams. That could be covered in an expanded article as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My inclination is to Merge but I'm a closer, not a participant, and I don't see a consensus to do that. Another closer might IAR this but I'm not ready to do that yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the merge target of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 had already been created (by me per precedent with suggestion from two other editors), what's the point of keeping this AfD open? I don't think there's any consensus to keep this as a stand-alone article. Randy Kryn, you were the only keep vote. Would agree now that the merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 is the best course of action? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Jweiss11, that works. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all editors were in favor of this Merge. But I'm not the only closer in town, another one might decide to close this discussion presently. I just wanted to see more support which Randy's opinion helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, okay, I understand that it's not solely on you to close this. For the record, I'll note two similar recent AfDs with analogous content: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 Wabash football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899, as it is unlikely to see enough sourcing for its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's no 'merging' to be done as all relevant content is already included at the target. Simply redirect it to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie - I've previously taken the same position, but I think that may be wrong. I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) merging preserves the edit history of both articles. If that is correct, the merge maintains the attribution history on the original work. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge or redirect. Favoring merge if that preserves the attribution history. Otherwise redirect for the reasons outlined by BeanieFan. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose an admin could perform a WP:HISTMERGE here if that's deemed necessary. But there's never been a whole a lot of substance in this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the case of 1884 Wabash football team merging to Wabash football, 1884–1889, no history merge was performed. Same for 1884 DePauw football team merging to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:19, 16 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!} 01:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clipgenerator

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

Atrociously sourced, highly advertorial that appears to fail WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Software, and Germany. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I agree that the article is terribly sourced and reads like an advert, it can be improved by adding better secondary sources that verify the app meets WP:N. If this doesn't happen, I will advocate for delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mjks28:, What evidence do you have suggesting this product meets WP:NCORP? I've done the WP:BEFORE search and came up with none. The most in-depth piece I came upon was https://www.pressetext.com/news/na-20080110015.html but this is of course nothing, because it's a press release.

Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search and can't find any sources either that prove the subject of the article is WP:N, so I change my argument to delete. Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reads like an advertisement. . .Mean as custard (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions here from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Wabash football, 1884–1889. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 Wabash football team

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

No indication this team, which only played a single game, meets the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. The only source in the article gives this team merely a brief mention, and a cursory search didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article was created as a sub-stub almost 10 years ago with a single sentence -- "The 1884 Wabash Little Giants football team represented Wabash College during the 1884 college football season." The only addition since then has been a notation that the "Little Giants" nickname wasn't adopted until 20 years ago. Nothing of encyclopedic value is lost by deleting this. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the article having been a WP:STUB for 9 years, and only having one citation. Mjks28 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are not reasons for deletion. For that reason, the person closing the discussion will unfortunately not take your stated opinion into regard, so please feel free to revise - and please read WP:DISCUSSAFD first. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think only having one citation qualifies as a reason, no? Let'srun (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the single citation had sufficient depth, it might be OK, but the source presented here lacks the needed depth. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All material is included in the Wabash College article. Leaving a redirect would be a painless courtesy. Carrite (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's true that being a Stub article is not a reason to delete an article. We have thousands and thousands of stub articles. Relisting to see if there is support for Rediretion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual and valid reasons for deletion here are set forth in the nom: The article lacks anything remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV and thus plainly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. As for redirecting, that would undermine the utility of red link in our comprehensive system of team templates. E.g., Template:Wabash Little Giants football navbox. A redlink tells us that a season article does not exist. We could theoretically fill in all of those redlinks with redirects, but then the utility of the templates is massively undercut and we end up with team templates that are a useless loop redirecting to the main team article. (A minor program like Wabash (Division III!) has very few notable seasons, and the blue links in the template allow the viewer to zero in on those seasons.) Please do not redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wabash football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge can't be closed to a target which doesn't currently exist. Also, would that target meet the notability guidelines (GNG and NSEASONS)? Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let'srun, my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines. It would be more productive for you to examine such possibilities before creating an AfD like this. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines We would need more than an assumption. Can you provide a couple sources? Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, you how to answer this question for yourself. See: 1889 Indiana Hoosiers football team. There's lots of other stuff on Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone wants to take the time to create a well-sourced redirect target, redirect is not an available or permissible option here. For that reason, I remain in the "delete" camp. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need an existing target article, not a hypothetical one that could be created in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wabash football, 1884–1889 has been created. More coverage can be found, but search at Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library is currently down. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the proposed decade target on the assumption Wabash is a football team we care about the seasons for. There's not enough available for this season to have a stand-alone article, there's not even that much to merge, but it's better to maintain a complete set of the information somewhere using the guidance at WP:NSEASONS which allows multiple seasons to be smushed into one. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What info still needs to be merged? I think if anything a redirect would suffice. Let'srun (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The single game result can be included somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It already is under 1884, no? Let'srun (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with the other AfD, I didn't notice the merge had already happened. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wabash football, 1884–1889 (there's nothing to merge, it's already there). Thanks to User:Jweiss11 for creating a suitable target article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wabash football, 1884–1889 since the season article does not appear to be notable enough for standalone inclusion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 DePauw football team

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

After a review of the sources in this article, I'm not convinced this team meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS, despite having the claim of playing in the first football game in Indiana. The only source is from the team website, which is primary. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better, with only a single sentence of coverage found at [[16]]. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit. The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis is borderline SIGCOV with a full paragraph on the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A closer can't redirect to a non-existent target. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DePauw football, 1884–1889 has been created. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the target meets GNG or NSEASONS, but if others find the sourcing to be acceptable I suppose a redirect would suffice. Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If need be, the scope could be expanded to cover the 1890s as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. There's not a lot of information here, it may have been reported on at the time, and it's in our interest to maintain a complete set of the information somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What information here isn't already included in that article? If anything, this should be either redirected or deleted, but I don't see any basis for a merge now. Let'srun (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merges don't often occur before the AfD is closed. Still the correct result, and this can be redirected there by the closer. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the info included in this article has already been merged in the article Jweiss11 made, so that doesn't apply in this case. Let'srun (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still viewing my vote as "the information should be retained via a merge" even though it has been already than a "it's been merged so we can redirect there," merge usually implies redirect with some or all information brought over to the new page. SportingFlyer T·C 17:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the newly-created DePauw football, 1884–1889 may still not be significant enough to warrant its own article and may need to expand its scope, but I guess for now redirecting this article to that one is the best outcome for this AfD. A discussion about the new article may result in further expanding that range of years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11's creation is a good first step, though I also agree with User:Eagles247 and suggest extending to 1899 which would covers the 19th century, bring it up to about 60 games, and provide greater certainey that there is enough SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sher Bengali

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

To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails notability and the sources on the page are poor to unreliable WP:HISTRS with many failing verification with no significant coverage on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes Wikipedia's minimum requirement criteria WP:GNG. also there are many offline sources are available, for more information please see WP:OFFLINE. Some of ref are 1, 2, 3, 4. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowwhoistheman (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 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!} 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is confusing and does not show why the subject is notable. Passing mentions collected together does not add to notability or establish a coherent timeline.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage only Passing mentions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:48, 12 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 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisiq R3

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

The company's website now redirects to another LMS, which does not have an article. I'm not sure if it was just renamed (the software was also renamed Inquisiq R4 years ago), or if this is a different program. This LMS has had a notability tag since 2021, and neither Inquisiq nor Hireroad having pages, I find it strange that a specific piece of software from them has a page. Searching for Inquisiq returns mostly SEO spam, or this article, which fulfills none of WP:GNG SekoiaTree (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 22 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!} 00:24, 29 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!} 23:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vilangkattuvalasu

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

Orphaned stub with no sources. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Geonames.nga.mil reports that the village (which it spells Vilangāttuvalasu) is located at 11°06′22″N 77°45′48″E / 11.10611°N 77.76333°E / 11.10611; 77.76333 14145226 N (Approved) . Google Maps shows a temple in the village with the address 4Q47+HCR, vilankattu valasu, Sivagiri, Tamil Nadu 638109, India. So if that is correct, we also know the village's PIN code. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t agree that these are substantial enough to show notability. The temple is the only place in that location that uses this name, whereas all other buildings surrounding it use the name Kodimudi, the taluk and the taluk headquarters. The temple name may be user generated and may not reflect official designation. Kazamzam (talk) 12:04, 5 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!} 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything in a search of the 2011 India Census data. Klbrain (talk) 15:14, 6 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 00:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityScorecard

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:CORP. Only the citation to TechCrunch would appear to be vaguely reliable. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. As to the citations in the article: ArsTechnica is actually more reliable than TechCrunch (ArsTechnica is rated as generally reliable, while TechCrunch is rated as marginally reliable on WP:RSP). However, none of the three citations provide significant coverage. Source 1 is WP:ORGTRIV (it talks about a standard transaction, namely "a capital transaction, such as raised capital"). Source 2 only mentions Security Scorecard with regard to something else, and Source 3 is a listicle. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the analysis conducted by Epicgenius. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 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.