Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 13	July 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Michele Boldrin

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

Most of the references are either his own website or YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., so I have serious doubts about notability. He did get some coverage due to his opposition to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, but this looks pretty much like WP:INHERIT. HPfan4 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Economics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a PR item, but it suggests notability as a professorship at a major university [1], not sure if it passes PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Missouri and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the named professorship passes WP:NPROF C5. Moreover, the citation record [2] looks like an easy pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a high citation field. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy pass of WP:Prof. Nom should study policy before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that there's a list of Universal studios films for every decade they've being in existence for, this list is well sourced and imo, is notable BFC Aspie (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes. Obviously a split of Lists of Universal Pictures films. No particular issue with those lists.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayati Devi

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

No indication that this person is notable per the current sourcing (which is not significant coverage), nor by her association with her husband, nor as a model/artist/musician. The article is part of a walled garden about the Munshi/Munsi extended family. A BEFORE search revealed nothing about this Jayati Devi (only about others). Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Women, India, and West Bengal. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Generation Z slang

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

This seems like the most direct violation of WP:DICTIONARY possible; an indiscriminate collection of words used by (predominantly American) teenagers, with little prose and often sourced exclusively to barebones Dictionary.com entries.

There are no lists of slang used by other generations on WP, and nearly all of the terms included here were/are used for a vanishingly short period of time before disappearing into obscurity. Such is the nature of language, particularly among young people, but that doesn't mean we need to be documenting every weeks-long language trend among a relatively small demographic group. AviationFreak💬 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. AviationFreak💬 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bougie, brainrot and AF are terms I've heard used and use, I'm nowhere near GenZ. This suggests notability... Seem well-sourced, not a slam dunk, but it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of words that I've heard, including many outside of the "Standard English" dictionary, that don't have an entry anywhere on Wikipedia (nor do I think they should). Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be in the business of cataloging words outside of legitimate glossaries that aid in a reader understanding articles on a particular topic. AviationFreak💬 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Zoomer slang has received particular coverage from prominent/WP:RS sources - Insider ([3] [4]), LA Times ([5] [6], WaPo ([7] [8]), NYP ([9]), Politico ([10]), USA Today ([11]), Newsweek ([12]) - with the related topic of Gen Alpha slang receiving coverage from the NYT ([13]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightoftheswords281 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, the article has WP:OR issues, but this topic (Gen Z slangs) has received a lot of coverage from reliable sources. (The article's also receiving ~5860 page views daily [14]). Some1 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to having an article just on "Generation Z Slang", but this list format is not what that article should look like. A well-sourced prose article (using some of the quality sources in the current article) would be fine, but the article at present is exactly the kind of thing that WP:NOTDICTIONARY is aimed against. Reliable sources absolutely do cover this topic, and the topic as a whole is notable, but a poorly-sourced exhaustive list with little actual explanatory prose should not be the way we cover the topic. AviationFreak💬 02:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So be bold and fix it, including moving the article to Generation Z slang if necessary. But requesting the deletion of the entire article because you disagree with the format and structure, even though you agree that Reliable sources absolutely do cover this topic, and the topic as a whole is notable, is not the way to go. Some1 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think editing a page at that scale (i.e., an entire rewrite and page move) is beyond what WP:BOLD is getting at. I do not believe a "List of Generation Z Slang" as an article has a place on Wikipedia, so I've requested its deletion. A prose article on the overall topic of Generation Z slang seems reasonable, but I believe that's an entirely separate article. Surely a better alternative to a BOLD edit of that scale would be a discussion like the one we're having now, given the possibility of the WP:BRD cycle undoing a time-consuming page rewrite. AviationFreak💬 03:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others and maybe Move to List of 21st century youth slang or something similar. - Sebbog13 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland in the 2009 Air New Zealand Cup

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

No evidence of the notability of the subject. No indication of any interest in keeping it up to date (no updates in the last 15 years). – Pee Jay 15:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

This article consists only of a squad list

This article has not been updated since 2009

This article is completely unreferenced

This article is completely unreferenced

This article is completely unreferenced

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoze Houndz

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. First AfD ended in no consensus DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Family_Channel#Animated_series_7 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as I pointed out last time, there are in-depth articles about the show, in national media coverage from the turn of the century. National Post ... actually the earlier more complete version of the article on the front page of the Montreal Gazette would be the better reference. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First article (National Post) is a hype piece centered on the 2 broadcasters that guest starred in an episode. It is not a review or indepth coverage of the show itself. Second article is just the same article, but more complete (as you stated). I don't think either support notability for the show. The article might be useful in the pages for the 2 broadcasters, but I feel it does nothing for an article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the article also contains four other footnotes, from the Waterloo Record and the Ottawa Citizen and Maclean's, which you seem to be either overlooking or deliberately pretending they aren't there. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article contains six footnotes, which is more than enough to establish passage of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six sources, same as last AfD. Not a slam dunk, but they at least confirm GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sitaare Zameen Par (film)

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

Nominated per WP:TOOSOON. Adnan (ᵀᵃˡᵏ) 14:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Adnan (ᵀᵃˡᵏ) 14:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The AFD request is opened with bad faith intent. You can see this deletion request and ANI discussion. Thanks for your consideration C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 14:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: because filming is wrapped and cast notable; or draftify if coverage regarding production is judged insufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Harburger TB season

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

Clear failure of WP:NSEASONS. Wikipedia is not a database of amateur sports. Geschichte (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of how this would meet WP:GNG and, since it's not a top-level professional season, it doesn't get a 'free pass' that might have been given if it met WP:NSEASONS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: might I be able ask you all to stall this discussion so I can add some sources to establish notability. MintyFresh201 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MintyFresh201: No other teams playing on the same level has had season articles written about them, ever. It would have to be an overwhelming depth of coverage, and not routine coverage from local news outlets. Geschichte (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classic World Racing

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

Together with Crendon Replicas, Blitzworld Buggies, Buckland Cars (and maybe others), articles created by @Mustang208:. None have significant coverage anywhere except for trade/specially articles. I don't think any pass WP:N. I picked this one as a start for the discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I haven't created these articles per se, but have copied them over from German Wikipedia.

I noticed the List of Car Manufacturers of the United Kingdom had a notice asking for more correctly sourced examples, so added to the list by copying over the German pages for smaller British car manufacturers, as I believed (perhaps naively) that since they were already on German wiki, they would be suitable pages.

Overall, since I haven't spent a great deal of time on these, I'm happy to go along with whatever consensus is reached.

Thanks. Mustang208 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson Brothers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is largely unsourced original research and fancruft. A search of sourcing reveals an absence of articles on this particular plot element in the film "Slap Shot." Every single article mentions the fictional "Hanson Brothers" in the larger context of the film, and I haven't seen a single source on the "brothers" themselves. A previous AfD in 2016 resulted in a "keep," but at the time there was no evidence provided of such independent sourcing. Therefore deletion or merge to the Slap Shot article is warranted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article from the New York Times is a pretty good source, since it talks about the Hanson Brother characters in a real-world context, rather than simply within the plot of the films. As most of the sources discussing the characters are also discussing the film, though, it could be a WP:NOPAGE situation where it would make more sense to cover them together in one article. Rorshacma (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per WP:BEFORE, there are many reliable sources available to improvement. The article needs work, but that is not grounds for deletion as per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on the article talk page, I only nominated this for deletion after I was able to perform a thorough check using a suitable database, Newspapers.com. As you can see from the article, in the many years since this article was created, reliable sources were not provided even after it was first nominated for deletion. Even the external link that sat at the bottom of this article for many years, described as the Hansons' "official website," did nothing more than pitch Hanson merchandise. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject passes WP:GNG and I can help with addressing the article's shortcomings. WP:SIGCOV & WP:SUSTAINED includes the above-mentioned NY Times piece, write-ups on NHL.com from 2017 and 2023, a 2006 cover story and a 2023 follow-up in The Hockey News, this article from 2020, and this article from 2021. Moreover, there will undoubtedly be endless reems and reels of coverage related to the actors' many public appearances over the years. The followign exerpt is from the 2010 NY Times article cited by Rorshacma above: "They used to make around 90 appearances a year and were sponsored by Budweiser. For the last several years, they have made about 20 to 30, Hanson said. They receive 300 to 400 requests, including some from Europe, he said." Buffalkill (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Merryweather

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

Follow-up from this AfD. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, and lack of sources for existing content in article Mdann52 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an entry in a major music encyclopedia, which is copiously referenced in the article already. If it's covered by other encyclopedias, it should be covered in this one. Chubbles (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Carey

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

Follow-up from this AfD. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, and struggling to find any sources to support existing information in article. Mdann52 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all I could find [15], brief mention. Just not enough coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncommitted as of yet, but this is a possible merge target for Neil Merryweather (since she was the lead singer of his band Mama Lion, and I expect Merryweather's article to survive vetting here). She may also meet WP:NACTOR if not WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Oswalds Retail Park

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. all sourcing appears to be routine coverage. Mdann52 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree fails WP:GNG, all references WP:ROTM. Orange sticker (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Nothing remarkable about this shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + add more sources Despite me being the author of the article, I believe the area is notable enough to have an article. Unlike a previous page i made earlier about a school in Kingsholm, It is gaining more notability from sources after the opening of the Popeyes there. Gloucestershire Live has reported alot on it as well. Snipertron12 Talk 07:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Asbury

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

After almost 14 years, the articles claims of notability are not backed up by the reliable and verifiable sources that would be required, nor was I able to find anything meaningful in a Google search that could be added. The article is an orphan and there appear to be no meaningful connections to any other article that would help flesh out a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The South Florida Business Journal is fine, not impressed with the other source in the article. Otherwise, I can only find mentions of his company, hiring employees or the like. Not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. From what I've been able to find, the majority of sources are primary with a lack of/no reliable secondary sources. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Myanmar, and Mizoram. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Which of the references is primary? And why would an incident in 2024 already have continued coverage? gidonb (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. WP:SNOW close. Overwhelming consensus for keep, backed by strong policy-based arguments. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Matthew Crooks

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Appears to be pretty obvious WP:BLP1E; should be redirect to Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Perpetrator ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and United States of America. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i dont mean BLP as he is dead, but this person is still only known for one event ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather WP:BIO1E should be referenced. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nvm just found out that BLP1E also applies to the recently deceased ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. BLP still applies to the recently deceased. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE There are articles about Squeaky Fromme, Sara Jane Moore, John Schrank, etc. H. H. Asquith David Lloyd George (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For WP:BLP1E all three conditions should be met. The third one is "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." - Robotje (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. Memevietnam98 (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Di. Let the dust settle before we have an article for this guy. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. There is nothing here that cannot be included in the event article. WWGB (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every person who has shot a U.S. president, including John Hinckley Jr. and John Schrank, has their own Wikipedia article. Why should this one be any different? MrsKoma (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Even though there's articles that are the subject of people who attempted to assassinate/assinate a U.S. president, it doesn't mean that Crooks should have an article. It's based on notability established from sources, and it doesn't seem like it. ~ Tails Wx 12:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your reasoning for not considering existing coverage to be sufficient? Articles dedicated solely to Thomas Matthew Crooks have been published by the BBC, Reuters, CNN, CBC, New York Times, Sky News, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and many more. Many of these articles are not simply reporting on his identification as the shooter, but on the man himself: his background, political beliefs, motivation, childhood, etc. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a bit off topic, however, hurricanes may covered by dozens to hundreds of sources depending on their lifespan but still not get articles because they werent notable. ✶Qux yz ✶ 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously believe that the man responsible for the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, in one of the most consequential elections of our lifetime, isn't a notable person? Let more coverage about his background come out before deciding to nuke the entire article, this should be common sense. 185.209.199.91 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Robotje and MrsKoma. More than enough coverage. Separate articles exist for the perpetrators of past US assassinations and attempted assassinations, as well as other significant events in the same category. There will almost certainly be a separate article inevitably regardless. I consider the coverage to be significant enough, establishing notability clearly. WP:BLP1E's third condition is not met. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator – not notable at the moment; only notable on this occasion for his involvement in the assassination, as others have stated above. ~ Tails Wx 12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are numerous news articles about this individual person. Famous for 1 event means that there can be an article if the event is significant enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep people and media are obviously interested in the person. Thue (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Media interest and people's curiosity are not supportable arguments for article validity. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. The subject has multiple news articles from various sources and is most certainly notable enough for his own article. PortlandSaint (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. As per BLP, it is still very early days, and he is only known for his assassination attempt. Information about him can be simply redirected to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. Edl-irishboy (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robotje. Normally I would support a redirect instead but this seems significant enough to warrant him having his own article and there are also numerous news agencies reporting solely about him per GhostOfNoMeme. Procyon117 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Low-quality Wikipedia articles that get a lot of attention (usually current news articles) almost always end up in a much better state than the ones they started in. While this article is new and at the moment isn't detailed enough, I expect it to rise in quality significantly as time goes by and more details emerge. BLP1E is not met because this person definitely does not meet criteria #3. For the time being I see no need to delete this article. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of redirection because the details about the shooter that emerge will eventually bloat the assassination attempt article. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
WP:BLP1E: As User:Robotje noted, the third prong of this policy is not satisfied; both the event and the individual’s role in it are clearly significant.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: This is an essay, not a policy. As far as it’s relevant, it states that “you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. [...] comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review [...] makes a much more credible case.” The article on John Hinckley Jr. is a vital article (see Talk:John Hinckley Jr.), and the article on John Schrank is rated as a good article. Thus, according to this essay, a comparison mentioning the existence of these articles (in accordance with WP:BLP1E in the case of Hinckley, and in the case of Schrank in accordance with WP:BIO1E, which says “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.”) is a valid argument.

Joriki (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BLP1E third condition not met: event is significant, and significant enough role and increasingly well documented. Widefox; talk 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS only applies if the other stuff also shouldn't exist. I'm still waiting for an argument as to why we should carve out a special exception for this person as opposed to other presidential assassins-manque (or presidential candidates, see Arthur Bremer). If you want to also delete and the other articles in Category:American failed assassins make that argument. Herostratus (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for an argument as to why we should carve out a special exception for this person...
Arguments could be made along the lines that
- He didn't survive and will not go through a "trial of the decade" like Hinckley or Schrank did. There will be no future appearances from Crook.
- He wasn't assassinated by someone associated with the mob like Oswald was.
- He's 21 and is unlikely to have a notable past.
Unless it turns out he was in the pay of someone to shoot Trump to make way for a more moderate/hardline nominee (pick your conspiracy) then there's not a lot aside from "21year old shoots at former President", which is inevitably going to leave a stub article where the citations outnumber the words. But per WP:LAGGING, we ain't there yet on demonstrating some more notable background/context. Hemmers (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, but we should re-evaluate when more information comes out about him Personisinsterest (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When it comes to the notability issue, articles about him are popping up quick. No one gets famous instantly, rather overnight. Still, being the person who tried to assassinate a former US president would make him notable by action alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rektz (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: This is WP:TOOSOON, we have little information about the shooter himself. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong redirect – this is WP:TOOSOON and a bunch of other policy violations. Redirect to attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator until it’s time to create article. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changine to strong redirect under same reasoning above. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Did the nominator even read BLP1E? The specific example used in point three is almost an exact parallel. An assassination attempt on a (former) president.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator, At the moment, we have too little amount of information on the gunman but I doubt anything will come out that will make us reconsider our decision. He didn't even see his 21st birthday and the only notable thing he did was shoot the former president in the ear. Besides, it's also WAY too soon to create a page on the perpetrator of a shooting that happened 15 hours ago. - MountainJew6150 (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. It's too soon to evaluate the person's notability (WP:TOOSOON). Sure, the event may be significant, but if a tiny stub is the most we can get right now, might as well put it in the Perpetrator section instead. When a page is needed later on, one can create the page. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. A biography of negligible biographical depth, in which more is written about what is not known than is known. If and when significant coverage about the person emerges, a useful article can be spun out. Until then, keep rationales are based on other people and speculated interest. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is precedence for creating article like this one and this event has triggered a substantial media response. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. There are no elements that justify its own article yet. The information in the article in question could perfectly well be in the main article.Fabiojrsouza (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is a good amount of information. The event was very notable. Not much of background yet though. The article will likely continue to grow. Cwater1 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others have already noted, all three prongs must be met to meet the deletion criteria under WP:BLP1E, and Crooks clearly does not meet prong three. A person carrying out a serious US presidential assassination attempt is literally the example they give of why someone would not meet prong three. Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator as suggested. All that there is to say and all that there likely ever will be to say about this person in an encyclopedic context is already said, with more appropriate weight and better sources, in the two small paragraphs in the assassination article. The other presidential assassins that keep getting referenced here were for the most part somewhat notable for things they did prior to their attempts, and all of them survived and went on to attract significant media attention throughout their trials and subsequent lives. Crooks was barely out of high school when he was shot dead - he didn't evidently do anything noteworthy in his short life leading up to his attempt for the media to obsess about, there won't be media attention for a subsequent trial, he won't be interviewed from his prison cell, there won't be a media circus every time he's up for parole, and so on. What we have now is a pseudo-biography of a person notable for a single event. If more information does come up later to support more than a pseudo-bio that summarizes this person's entire life with "he was born then he shot Trump", we can revisit an article at that time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s like saying ‘all that can be invented, has been invented. So let's close the US Patent Office!’. It has been less than 24-hours since the event and you’re ready to close this chapter without additional discovery. Your short sightedness has clouded your judgement. 2A02:8070:48B:B800:A16D:B21D:C914:DEE (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. And watch the personal attacks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator as suggested. MushroomMan674 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This easily meets the notability threshold. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the defining principle here. When you try to kill a US President (sitting or former), you become notable. Simple as that. More info to come. BarntToust (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - WP:BIO1E specifically states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Baltarstar (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will definitely not be the Princip of our times. It is too early to consider this attack as an example of such an event, we will see that only when we assess the impact of this attack on the campaign. This criterion applies to the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic, events about which many books have been written. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thomas Matthew Crooks is now extremely notable, and has received national coverage for attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. JohnAdams1800
Keep. WP:BIO1E doesn't prohibit this article, it even specifically states: "On the other hand, if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles." This event meets those criteria, and Crooks is a major participant. -- Falcorian ^(talk) 13:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is too early to consider this attack as an example of such an event, we will see that only when we assess the impact of this attack on the campaign. This criterion applies to the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic, events about which many books have been written. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This matches the the attempted assignation of Reagan, which meets the criteria. -- Falcorian ^(talk) 14:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manifestly notable, doesn't meet all deletion criteria as proposed. Killuminator (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This person tried to assassinate a presidential candidate. Incredibly notable. BlunanNation (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator, Whichever way you look at it, it is WP:BLP1E, unlike the assassins who have their own articles, this boy died on the spot, so it's unlikely that his biography is noteworthy in itself, but only as context for the attack itself. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as the third condition of WP:BLP1E is clearly not met. It states: "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." The event is 1) significant and 2) Crooks' role is both substantial and well documented (as demonstrated by the significant coverage already dedicated to Crooks; the BBC, Reuters, NYT, CNN, CBC, Telegraph, Guardian, etc. have all published articles on Crooks, and we will inevitably see further and more detailed coverage over time). GhostOfNoMeme 13:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is too early to consider this attack as an example of such an event, we will see that only when we assess the impact of this attack on the campaign. This criterion applies to the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic, events about which many books have been written. The perpetrator of the 2023 Nashville school shooting also received a lot of media attention immediately following the attack, but ultimately proved to be unworthy of a separate article. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the attempted assassination of a former US president and current US presidential candidate is eminently a significant event. WP:BLP1E uses the example of the Reagan assassination attempt, not Kennedy's assassination. Clearly, such events are significant in and of themselves. I don't believe we need to wait for books to be written to establish this event as plainly significant on the face of it. GhostOfNoMeme 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the fact that Hinckley didn't kill Reagan, he's also an interesting case for forensic psychiatry, and he's still alive today. Crooks won't do anything interesting again, maybe he'll go down in pop culture, but it's too early for that now. If Trump had died or Crooks had survived, the notability of this person would be beyond dispute, but as it is, this biography does not provide it. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether we like it or not, Thomas Matthew Crooks belongs to American history by his deed; the page opened in his name will be expanded as serious, sourced information becomes available; keeping this page open avoids the scattering of these additional details to come in subsections of other pages that would talk about Thomas Matthew Crooks. Golffies (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thomas Matthew Crooks Has Public Interest and Potential for Expansion: He is of public interest and has the potential for expansion. Even if the article is currently a stub, it can serve as a starting point for further research and development by the Wikipedia community. He is genuinely interesting to the public, it deserves a place on the platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoisjohngalt (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator; as BLP1E, why should we have articles about shooters while they are not known other than the tragic event? Toadette^Edit! 14:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changing mh mind (edit conflict) Toadette^Edit! 16:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Speedy keep and close. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robotje duly referenced the Wikipedia rule "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." Self explanatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. It is too early for a dedicated page. It's obvious we should wait until ideology and history is discovered. At least until the investigation is complete. Let it play out. 24.167.35.28 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This individual attempted to assassinate a former President. Whether we like that former President or not, this is a historic event in American history which just took place. John Hinkley attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan and there is a Wikipedia page for him. There is precedent for having Wikipedia pages for even failed presidential assassins. I imagine we will learn even more about this shooter which means there will be opportunities to expand the page. --LasVegasGirl93 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John Hinkley survived the attempt and went on to have a trial. Compare the two articles. If more comes out about the shooter then we can create the page then, however, the existing article is nothing more than a stub and has no additional information outside of what's already mentioned on the assassination attempt article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Does not necessarily meet BLP1E; as I don't believe the anything is known about the motive or the subject at this time. Since the perp didn't survive, there will likely be little to write about and article will remain a stub. role was both substantial and well documented per WP:BLP1E] as the example there specifically cites the attempted assassinator of Reagan. If more comes out later, article can always be created and expanded. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per WP:NSUSTAINED: If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Hypnôs (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per above. Sebastián Arena... 14:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article. A lot of the Keep votes here seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL. There's no rush. Guettarda (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. This person is known for only one event, and the assasination itself failed in terms of taking the target's life. Before the investigation opens up some significant background or related story, I do not see it necessary to keep this article. HolyCrocsEmperor (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. Great achievement (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly because a Redirect would only last briefly, if at all, as all other assassins, and would be assassins, have their own article. Having said that, this article should be brief and not turned into a veiled attempt to entertain partisan interests of any kind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator Davi.xyz (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above. DrowssapSMM 14:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. Efe Önem (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous other people have stated that it should be kept for not meeting the third prong of WP:BLP1E, and I agree. However, it might need to be protected because of general sanctions about post-‘92 us politics, but i am not 100% sure 24.115.255.37 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with most of the "reasons to keep" that others have mentioned. Charlie (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Robotje and others on the significance of this event. 53 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All perpetrators who have injured or shot presidents have an article. 2407:4D00:1C06:87E0:ADC7:77EA:8300:6963 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is going to become the subject of intense mass analysis of him specifically, information that won't necessarily be wholly relevant to the page for the assassination attempt itself Claire 26 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator per WP:BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The latter aptly reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, and it's quite clear that this individual is only notable for taking a shot at Trump. The present state of Thomas Matthew Crooks is such that it could be fully incorporated into the article on the assassination attempt without creating balance issues, and I think it would be better to present information on the perpetrator in the context of the shooting, rather than have two separate articles to maintain. As such, I believe we should redirect and merge this article to its natural parent. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator per WP:BIO1E. Nothing here that can't be included in the event article. R. G. Checkers^talk 14:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Hinckley Jr. and Jared Lee Loughner have their own wiki page, it would make logical sense that he will also be the target of intense media and be notable Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The wounding of a former United States President and current candidate is significant, and his actions will no doubt impact discourse surrounding political violence in the United States, as well as the election itself. Arthur Bremer got his own Wikipedia article, so I feel this is worthy. 21stCenturyCynic (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no way that this isn't going to be documented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, for being one of a few people attempting or having killed a US president. We've got global coverage at this point, which I'm sure will be discussed and expanded in the near future. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - why deleting? this can be a helpful article that can help people who are interested and want to know more about who the perpetrator was. Barakeldad (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination is needless deletionism. 15:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Moncrief (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable meets WP:GNG with SIgcov. Bruxton (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Better for context to keep the limited amount of information currently available in one article Mrfoogles (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. --Minilammas (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Lack thereof is worse than denying the event. Political discourse caused the attempt, and we can't let political discourse attempt to erase or besmear. 72.28.130.25 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least until the tag for involvement in a current event is removed when the time comes; while this is still unfolding, it’s a little hard to tell the degree to which this man is notable for his role in the event. I regard it as a little premature to make a decision about deletion now. Hydroxyzine-XYZ (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being, then (probably) redirect. The perpetrator will not do any more notable things; this much is certain. In articles on criminals who are non-notable except for the crime they committed, Wikipedia has no universal standard; Robert Pickton is an article, but "Alek Minassian" redirects to 2018 Toronto van attack, despite both Pickton and Minassian being non-notable beyond their crimes. A criminal investigation that will determine TMC's motive, and whether there is anything notable in his biography beyond the assassination attempt is underway, but at present, we do not know the results, or the contents of his computer, or if he wrote a diary and what it contains, or his social-media handles and activities, etc. All of these may or may not become notable as the investigation proceeds. Present publicly-available information is, I think, a clear argument for a merge/redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator, but this information is only preliminary.

No clear guideline exists for such cases, but for practical reasons, I think it is better than to keep the articles separate until they are approaching stability, and then decide for a merger (if TMC is indeed non-notable beyond the assassination attempt) or against it (if TMC turns out to be "more than he seems"): Merging will require the TMC article's content to be condensed, and in the case of a re-splitting, this discarded information would need to be restored and re-vetted, which is cumbersome.

Also, both articles are liable to be targets of vandalism, edit-wars etc, but in different ways: Attempted assassination of Donald Trump will have a lot of legit information upcoming (to be handled on a per-request basis if the article is protected) but also a lot of opinionated content from non-notable sources; the choice of weapon alone is bound to cause a lot of debate. It thus mainly requires notability-checking. Whereas Thomas Matthew Crooks will have one or very few sources of legit information (the official investigation, as well as maybe some OSINT work) but is liable to be swamped by non-verifiable "facts" that are likely perpetuated by sources that are formally "reliable" (looking at you, New York Post). It thus mainly requires verification-checking. Keeping the articles separate for the time being, rather than having one article that is affected by these two different problems/challenges, will keep these editing/maintenance problems and resultant workload to a minimum, until enough information is available to achieve a broad consensus on how to deal with this case. Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump: But I don't know the exact precedent for assassination attempts. Kimen8 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Kimen8 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We have an article for Lee Harvey Oswald and John Hinckley Jr. — the argument for keeping is strong. Mutspelli (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easy GNG pass for bio of a chief actor in a historic event. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to the article about the assassination attempt. I agree with Ivanvector's points that unlike most/all of the other articles about attempted assasins being cited by others in this discussion, Crooks is both dead (precluding further appearances in the public eye) and was very young (unlikely to have accomplished anything else notable) so there is not likely not going to be a lot of further coverage about him beyond his role of pulling the trigger. What little information that is available now is coming out in crumbs and could be served by a section in the main article. Once the dust settles and the investigation is completed, this can be revisited to see if Crooks meets WP:BIO1E. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. We do not have much about the person to validate its own article, just this one event. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. Obvious BLP1E. There's some WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding John Hinckley Jr and John Schrank. I consider those different because they survived and were tried - meaning there is a deal of independent coverage about the trials and aftermath, which is derived from the assassination attempt but separate and establishes notability. Likewise, Lee Harvey Oswald survived, was arrested and then assassinated himself by Ruby, who was associated with the mob, which spawned some highly developed conspiracy theories. By contrast, it seems unlikely that there is going to be a great deal of coverage about Crooks that is not directly related to the shooting (so per WP:LAGGING he should be a section of the main article until there's enough to be worth splitting out). Unless it turns out there was some wild conspiracy and he was in the pay of someone to shoot Trump in favour of a different nominee or something similarly out there (I'm sure QAnon have something cooking up, but we need not concern ourselves with that on WP). As it stands, comparable cases might include the attempted kidnapper of Princess Anne, or the perpetrators of the UK's worst mass shooting) or the 2023 Nashville school shooting who do not have their own articles. Just because someone did a bad thing and it's in the news doesn't make them notable. None of the UK's mass shooters have their own articles - it requires something additional like Oswald's shooting or a post-shooting trial.Hemmers (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if there isn’t enough info on him yet for it to be notable, we will naturally get more and more, deleting it and then having to bring it back when more info comes is unnecessary

KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we will naturally get more and more

Will we? Naturally the press will regurgitate the same basic facts - 21year old from Butler, won an award, shot at the former President. And yes, we can add those increasingly repetitive citations to the article, even though half of them will be opening "as reported by <the other outlet>". The presumption that any novel and notable material will emerge to justify a separate article is just that - presumptuous. And per WP:LAGGING, we don't deal in presumption. Hemmers (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG pass for bio of a chief actor in a historic eventThief-River-Faller (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now At the moment it's hard to tell exactly how notable the subject will be after this all blows over but I'm generally opposed to WP:RUSHDELETE in situations where notability cannot yet be determined. Ultimately I think it's likely we'll end up with nothing particularly notable on the guy outside of this and having to redirect, but since the story is actively unfolding at the moment I support waiting until the dust settles to delete. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 15:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has enough notable coverage in the media to warrant a page. Scu ba (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned it doesn't meet with BLP1E, and the article is new and details still emerging, the article will grow. We should wait before we rush to delete or redirect.Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has enough coverage to warrant a page. And I think attempting to assassinate a former President is notable. Benpiano800 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I think, as it is an actively developing story, we should keep this, but when it dies down, That is when we should decide to merge. Carson004 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As described above, all other shooters of US presidents all have their own pages. When more information about Crooks is released, like his exact motives and such, the page will also become more expansive. Nowhere Box (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. History needs to record details on the infamous stains on humandkind as well for future generations to reference. Zindulee (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until a CFORK is needed of the assassination article due to LENGTH. Seriously why is this even a discussion? --24.125.98.89 (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has enough notable coverage in the media to warrant a page. Scu ba (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the assassination attempt itself is notable enough for an article, than the assassin should also be notable enough for an article. This kid shot Trump, and was killed in the process. This is world news. Everyone wants to know who this kid was. Like it or not, the easiest way to get famous is to do something like this. This is one for the history books, and people are not going to forget about it anytime soon. --Thoric (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have an article on Anna Ayala then we can have this article too. Nard the Bard (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: WP:TOOSOON, the story is still developing. --Auric
Keep - As described above, all other shooters of US presidents all have their own pages. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: BLP does not apply as per Point 3. 45.44.122.106 (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator, until such time as ther is enough information about the shooter that doesnt belong in the main article. Right now, this would be needless reduplication. Qwirkle (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per WP:BIO1E. I know it might be hard for most Wikipedians, but it is in fact possible to write concisely and proportionately. We can succinctly cover all salient points about the shooter in a couple paragraphs in the main article, even if local journalists in the next few weeks report he liked video games or bike riding or strawberry ice cream and his neighbors all think he was a fine young man who'd never do such a thing. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has been documented clearly as part of this event, so WP:BIO1E does not apply. Let'srun (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect There is a strong argument to redirect since the information on the perpetrator is limited, however it is likely that this information will expand, likely to the point where the detail will warrant a separate page. It therefore makes sense just to start a new page now to simplify the process for the future. This is mainly an argument against deletion. 45.44.122.106 (talk) 16:41, 14 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.

Widescreen Mode

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

Non-notable band. --Viennese Waltz 11:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Houmen railway station

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

It exists but doesn't appear to be notable. Boleyn (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meets GNG:

"厦深高铁鲘门站：深汕合作区明日之星- 深圳本地宝". web.archive.org. 2019-09-09. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
"鲘门站前公共交通枢纽项目即将竣工深汕人出行更品质". Archived from the original on 2020-04-12.

I also note that looking at the adjacent stations, they seem at a glance to be able to pass GNG (via ZH article). Deleting random articles in a mainly notable set creates consistency and navigation issues. Jumpytoo Talk 18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to a merge discussion for all the articles about stations on the relevant line per Jumpytoo. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Mahmutaj

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

Mahmutaj never played in a professional league and the coverage to date isn't enough for WP:SIGCOV, in my view. Panorama 1 is just an announcement of being released, Panorama 2 is just a direct quote from Mahmutaj with no third party analysis and Sport Ekspres represents the best source on him but it still only confirms that he scored 19 goals for Luftëtari and played at under-17 level for Albania, which I would say falls just short of the depth required. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I was wondering... Since interview sources fail WP:GNG, do ones with third-party analysis count to demonstrate the person's notability? If so, what are some examples from websites? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This interview is an example of one that would count as having at least some third party analysis (of the tennis player Carlos Alcaraz). Clariniie I am aware that that's a different sport, though. Good interview sources for football look like The Guardian (Leah Williamson interview) and BBC (Aitana Bonmatí interview). Notice how the articles are written outside of a normal Q&A format and how most of them start with some background info on the interviewee first, which automatically pushes it to SIGCOV. The articles do more than just merely regurgitate the interview. If someone can find similar calibre sourcing for Mahmutaj, I will happily withdraw my support for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ervis Koçi (footballer, born 1998)

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

No top tier appearances, no meaningful prose and no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. The only source that I can find is Panorama, a mere squad listing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, played some football games on a tier that was not fully professional, and no relevant sources. To the closer: remember to move Ervis Koçi (footballer, born 1984) to the non-disambiguated title afterwards. Geschichte (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Poorly-formatted article without significant coverage and major updates :( I also agree with Geschichte for the article rename once this nomination has been closed. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not even a claim of notability. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Šárka Sudová

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

With only database references listed, this article fails WP:GNG. The closest significant coverage in reliable sources I found is iDNES. Unlike her sister Nikola, she has not received any medal record. Notability is not inherited from relatives; as ATD, should we consider redirect this article to her sister or Czech Republic at the 2010 Winter Olympics? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is definitely notable enough. Article expanded. FromCzech (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Updated article after edits from FromCzech passes the notability guideline. C 679 13:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There still isn't enough WP:RS for GNG: apart from the iDNES ref, the article as of now relies on database references and texts written by herself (author profile pages). I was unable to find better. (N.B.: I do not speak Czech and my assessment of sources is based on machine translation of them, which means it may be very flawed). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granuel Lika

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

Lika played only 97 mins in the Superliga and there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. My own searches yielded only Panorama, a passing mention, and Durrës Lajm, a squad listing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egli Trimi

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

His professional career was extremely brief by the looks of it. My own searches didn't yield any non-database coverage, therefore WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC don't seem to be met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, not even a credible claim to notability at this point. Geschichte (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Pekao Investments

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

Fails WP:NCORP Imcdc Contact 09:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Poland. Imcdc Contact 09:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company is likely notable (pl wiki article is a bit better, states it is the largest investment fund in Poland) but both our and pl are lacking independent refs. Quick GS search suggests sources exist (ex. [16]) but I am not motivated to fix this - the company should hire a PAID editor for that. They certainly can afford this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Labáthová

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

There are some mentions on online newspapers of her being paired with Nada Daabousová in the synchronized swimming competition at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but I could not find any in-depth coverage of Labáthová herself that would pass WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which may help copy over English article otherwise. No news about Labáthová have been reported since then either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few things I located: [17] [18] [19]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source #1 mentions Labáthová in the first five paragraphs, Source #2 does not address her in-depth, and Source #3 mentions her in one paragraph repeated from the title. None of these provide significant coverage that is required for notability; Labáthová still needs to meet SIGCOV and GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalentEgg

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

Nominated for speedy deletion in September 2021. Article unchanged since then but does not meet WP:NORG. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, and Canada. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orsett Heath Academy

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge to Orsett Heath or Grays, Essex (as its not actually in Orsett Heath). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality

AfDs for this article:

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

Self published book by an author who has paid many editors for his and its inclusion in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBOOK, this is WP:ADMASQ and part of a walled garden of self promotion. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : no coverage and fails WP:42. Not to mention what is mentioned in the nom which may require WP:SALT ..FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to: Don't cite WP42 at AfD and Checkout 1, 2,3 and 4 among others
217.165.5.17 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 217.165.5.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. To start with, this is a self-promotional article about a self-promotional self-published book and should be rewritten to address this tone. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and this book passes criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK, which states "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]." According to reliable sources (the Monitor, a legitimate and reliable Ugandan news outlet, plus PML Daily), Uganda's government agency overseeing curriculum adopted the book as part of its secondary school curriculum and thus made it a "subject of instruction." And according to NBOOK, satisfying one of these criteria overcomes concerns about self-publication. (While criterion 4 is dispositive, I also think we need to be careful about overturning a prior "Keep" AfD decision without a clear statement from the nominator about why that discussion was flawed.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without abandoning WP:BEFORE, this book has significant press coverage, an award, and is on a national curriculum, where there is promotion, I recommend cleanup. Regarding Paid Edits, there are necessary Disclosures on the talk page already.

Comment This article was already nominated for deletion before in 2020 and the result was Keep. The very nominator here was part of the discussion contributors. I have also established that it is the very nominator who actually started the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. and he has a rare special biased/negative interest against the project, the author as he keeps reffereing to that everytime he wants something bad to be done to the (or revert/delete) authors wikipedia works. He appears to smartly resist any updates to the author and his global contributions, potentially aiming to frustrate other contributors, by labeling every editor of this author as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) disregarding the fact that all contributions are collaborative efforts.

The nominator acts as if he owns Wikipedia content through determining what should be written and not written about him or according to his wish, he's hence abusing and misusing; in guise, several Wiki policies and contradicting the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). I am therefore convinced and I believe beyond reasonable doubt that this nomination was selfishly made in bad faith against the Wikipedia foundation Mission, Purpose and Terms of Use including Wikipedia:Assume good faith and deliberately violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies 217.165.5.17 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 217.165.5.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep in accordance with the available reliable sources (WP:RS) and the criteria outlined in Book Sources (WP:BOOKCRIT#1), as the references meet the required standards for accuracy, credibility, and editorial quality.2A00:F28:486:3B8:2863:3750:DBB2:7C3F (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 2A00:F28:486:3B8:2863:3750:DBB2:7C3F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The Article Already passed an AFD with a "Keep" Result implying community consensus for its notability. Since then, no paid editors have contributed; all edits have been from independent editors part of whom contributed to the Article's first ADF consensus. The Edit history show the article having been improved by experienced and non conflicted editors ensuring compliance with Wikioedia's standards. The WP:ADMASQ claim is unfounded based on the current content.The nominator's motivations should not influence the deletion discussion.5.31.71.51 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 5.31.71.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. I stand by my keep !vote above on policy grounds but I think the flurry of IP SPAs who showed up need to be disregarded. Would love to see more perspectives from some uninvolved regulars at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm unsure if Uganda has the same paid for media coverage problems as India and Nigeria, so evaluating the sources is kind of difficult here as I am not familiar with many of the publications. IMO, the schooling thing mentioned above helps it be pushed over to keep, and most of the sources look okay for notability - though some appear unduly promotional and perhaps tied to the author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Basing on the fact that was adopted by the Ugandan Ministry of Education through its NCDC and recommended for use in Secondary and higher institutions of Learning, It got an award though this is only talked about in Uganda, I find many substantial postive reviews on Amazon and I find many references linking to several libraries for schools and Universities in Uganda.102.85.51.233 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — 102.85.51.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, first, Amazon reviews are not important, secondly, I'd like to hear from some of our AFD regulars instead of new IP editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hamis Kiggundu: Coverage I can find is only about the individual, nothing about his book. I'd redirect or merge a few lines into his article there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzammil Aslam

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

The creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman There is extensive coverage in the Urdu language media and press about this individual and his work, as seen in the search results on Google here. Given this, would you reconsider changing your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your argument. But I don't think that being an advisor to any Chief Minister, he is passing WP:NPOL. And if we talk about WP:GNG, then he is not able to pass even that subject. First, neither WP:SIGCOV is there, from WP:RS is available. Hope you have understood. Best of luck for the future! Youknow? (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, If you believe the subject has extensive coverage, could you provide the WP:THREE best sources that meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. Simply saying WP:GOOGLEHITS won't suffice — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib @Youknowwhoistheman With hundreds of sources available, selecting just three is challenging. Most reliable sources cover his statements or financial initiatives, now they wouldn’t report on a non-notable nobody. His notability is evident from the coverage his statements receive. His position contributes to his notability, and this isn’t his first role; he was previously an advisor to Prime Minister Imran Khan. Despite the difficulty in choosing from many sources, a We News piece in Urdu language focuses exclusively on him, and numerous reliable sources with alternative spellings of his name report on his statements and work. This Express Tribune is all about him as well. Then, there are many which cover his appointment to the cabinet, one of them being this Dawn piece. There are plenty more under alternative spelling of his name here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, You mentioned there are hundreds of sources available, but since you've provided 03 coverages, I would like to assess them individually. Firstly, I don't even consider We News a RS. I'm unsure if it has been discussed at WP:RSN, but given its scarce use on WP, I'm not inclined to spend time debating its reliability there. WP:COMMONSENSE suggests it isn't a RS, especially for BLPs. The coverage in the Express Tribune doesn't directly and thoroughly discuss the subject, though this coverage can be used for WP:V, not to establish GNG. The same can be said for the Dawn coverage; it's WP:TRIVIALMENTION and lacks sig./in-depth coverage of the subject. While I don't dispute that there may be some press coverage, but we need solid coverage that delves into detail as required by the GNG for it to contribute to meeting WP:N. We do not establish the WP:N of BLPs based on WP:TRIVIALMENTION or WP:ROTM coverage. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib Why wouldn't you consider We News reliable? Limited usage doesn't necessarily indicate that the source is unreliable. What do you think about this and this? These three combined should be enough to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, I'm not saying We News isn't a RS because it's seldom used here. Please re-read my comment. We News isn't reliable for many reasons, one of which is that the author who wrote about Muzzammil Aslam tends to produce sensational/tabloid-style stories. Additionally, all the sources you've provided (incl. this and this) are just announcements about his appointment as an Advisor in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government, making this a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Please allow me to ping @S0091: to get their take on the provided coverage/sources. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that pinging specific editors to get their views in a deletion discussion may be construed as canvassing. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) this specific editor does not always share the same views as mine. 2) I'm not seeking their vote; I just want their feedback on the provided coverage. 3) WP:CANVASS doesn't explicitly prohibit pinging others. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib is correct that I do not always agree with him. However, I will not offer an opinion by being pinged to an AfD in which I have not already participated because even the appearance of canvassing is enough to sew distrust which is the last thing AfD needs, especially a contentious one which appears to be the case here. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. However, @OwenX mentioned here that it’s safe to occasionally ping others for their input. But anyway I understand your position. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Given that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province does not have a finance minister, Aslam's role becomes particularly significant. He is currently the sole individual in the cabinet overseeing financial matters, which underscores his importance and justifies the need for an article about him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that NPOL does not cover advisors to ministers. There is no consensus that it does and no good reason has been provided to extend NPOL's reach that far. I won't !vote because I can't effectively search for coverage in Urdu. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Please take any references I've given in Urdu, copy the text, and use Google Translator to translate it from Urdu to English. Even if NPOL doesn't apply to him, I believe he still has enough coverage to meet GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We News appears to be reliable and is SIGCOV. Tribune and Dawn are trivial mentions. Not enough to meet GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts How about this one and this one? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts I've briefly explained above why I don't think We News is a RS. SheriffIsInTown Just getting some press coverage doesn't make someone notable or meet the GNG. Fwiw, Waqar Zaka has considerably more press coverage, yet his BLP was deleted because it failed to meet the rigorous GNG requirement. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not being used often on Wikipedia does not make a source unreliable. We News appears to have an editorial board and some reporting standards. I'm not seeing any huge red flags on their website. Also, the fact that another article was deleted is neither here nor there because we evaluate each article on its own merits. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I hope you didn't overlook my previous comment where I shared two additional English language sources (TNN and Mettis Global) that provide detailed coverage of Aslam. These might help you reconsider and change your comment to a keep vote. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mettis is a trivial mention announcing his being hired. TNN is also routine coverage about him being hired. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I never claimed that the infrequent use of a source makes it unreliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misread your point above. Apologies. But the fact that it isn't used much doesn't mean we can just hand-wave away its reliability in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts, Noted. And that's precisely why I pinged @S0091, for a third opinion on this source. Also I mentioned Waqar Zaka because he also served as an expert in the same government, albeit in a different role. And he has received significantly more press coverage than Muzzammil Aslam. This was merely an example and not meant to establish a precedent. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib @Voorts The TNN story covers him as a person, stating he is a renowned economist, mentions his date of birth, two decades of experience, and leadership positions in several private institutions. It also covers his joining PTI, his previous role, and his educational qualifications in detail. Mettis Global discusses his appointment and mentions others who have been appointed as advisors, but the rest of the piece is about him, indicating his greater notability. The rest of the piece, like the We News and TNN stories, talks about his role as a spokesperson, his 15 years of business experience, and detailed coverage of his educational qualifications. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, I understand your point but I’m still not convinced. As I mentioned earlier, both stories discuss his appointment as an advisor. Thus, I concur with @Voorts that both are just routine coverage about him being hired. A clear case of WP:BLP1E. While I’m fine with citing them for WP:V, but imv they don’t meet the criteria for establishing GNG. In case it’s useful, the Mettis Global coverage doesn’t even have a byline. And does Tribal News Network even have an editorial team? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:47, 14 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!} 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Delete: the sources I found did not go beyond his nomination. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as falling short of the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bus (group)

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

Non-notable band. Article was moved from draft space and I originally returned it. After examining the article I noticed that it claim the band started 6 December 2023. However, the the only reference was published 2 February 2021. This was at least 17 months before auditions started. In addition the reference seemed to be about three young women and not twelve young men. The article provides no references for a band that has only released two singles and was created by a non-notable reality show, 789 SURVIVAL. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The citation currently in the article was clearly incorrectly inserted, probably the result of an inappropriate copy/paste job. But may I remind the nominator that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. A Google News search for BUS 789 Survival turns up plenty of Thai-language coverage. (I'm not !voting keep just yet due to quality concerns raised by the aforementioned copy/pasting). --Paul_012 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but as said the band does not appear to be notable. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Their music have already been released. The band was split into 2 different subunits: BUS5 and BUS7. It should be easier to find sources from these 2 names. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Should not linger in mainspace with WP:V problems that are basic in nature: Who are Bus? Are they one or two groups? Who are in those two groups? Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 4 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!} 22:06, 6 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!} 06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify. Although there is coverage, there are not many WP:RS, what I could find was a) social networks b) fandom c) a website called kprofiles that looks user-generated (though my results may be not the best due to language settings). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory Response Network

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

No WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Redirect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of which it is a part. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Behavioural science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "No reliable sources"? There is one reliable source. None of the included material would be found in the CDC article. My vote: Retain. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Per WP:GNG, the topic should receive SIGCOV in multiple RS, which having only one source does not satisfy. In addition, the coverage is simply WP:DICT, not WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps a merge. Longhornsg (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect as above as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Keep, Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep Upon a preliminary look, it doesn't seem very informative, well sourced, or well written. Now to check if other sourcing exists... Okay, we could use the official site to at least clear up what the LRN is. Google Scholar shows that a number of research teams have written evaluations of the LRN: Public Health Reports, American Society for Microbiology, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness... USA Today printed two opinion pieces from the same author on the subject [20]. Okay, I'm feeling weak keep. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For reasons given above. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:18, 13 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!} 06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Darkfrog24. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional British and Irish universities

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

This subject does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional locations. Another list that is WP:OR in both content and in the synthesis of "fictional X that are also Y and Z." Jontesta (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think this is an obvious delete, and there is no List of fictional universities and colleges to merge to. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources included in the article that cover the topic of fictional British/Irish universities as a group or set - the closest this article has are a series of joke articles from the same website. The only entry here that actually has its own article is the Unseen University, which isn't actually even in Britain or Ireland. Fails WP:LISTN, appears to be peppered throughout with WP:OR, and probably runs afoul of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities and expand to cover the subject generally. BD2412 T 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities as suggested above by BD2412T and possibly implied by LaundryPizza03. A quick search shows a number of articles on fictional universities as a group, so that would appear to pass WP:LISTN. The main problem here is that it's a non-encyclopedic WP:CROSSCAT, but as that can be solved by removing the cross-category element that seems to be the obvious solution. Robminchin (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in His Dark Materials

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional concepts from a book series. Much of this is WP:OR in both content and in the choices of what to cover. Jontesta (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got pinged as the article creator. It seems that a long time ago I merged a couple of articles because they were not individually notable. Perhaps some of the items here have enough 3rd party coverage to merit existence, but I'll stay out of discussion. --Tone 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to His Dark Materials#Setting. It might be able to be spun off into a Universe of His Dark Materials article, but currently it seems heavily loaded with plot and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I got pinged as a major contributor to the article, though truth to tell my role has been largely copyediting and 'pruning'. This list article summarises all the 'worlds' and distinct locations in the (massive) His Dark Materials two trilogies of books and a number of spin-offs. All the info is - or should be - in the coverage of each of those books, and is no more WP:OR or indiscriminate than a list of characters from a major book, TV or film series, of which we host many. WP in my opinion is highly inconsistent in its coverage of created works. Almost every plot summary of almost every film or book is, in reality, intrinsically WP:OR. Choosing what plot devices to record and how to record them, an editor makes creative judgements. Our justification to ourselves is that the "work itself is the source". According to strict interpretation of P&G, this article probably has no place on WP, but IMHO has value as collating info recorded elsewhere on the site.Pincrete (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Wimmin

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

Non-notable vocal group. Did not find any reliable sources about the group online. GamerPro64 05:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United States of America. GamerPro64 05:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teen Titans Go! characters

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

WP:OR without independent sources. Much of this is a retread of List of Teen Titans (TV series) characters and we do not need two non-notable lists. Jontesta (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Third Watch characters

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

Unsourced WP:OR with no indication of notability. Not enough coverage by reliable sources according to WP:BEFORE. Jontesta (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Elephant

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

Entire article violates WP:OR. The sources that are actually reliable are treating the subject as merely one of them many concepts of Hindu cosmology. All other sources are either primary or they are based on outdated sources, and they don't help the subject in passing WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Ashta-diggajas is a significant concept in Hindu cosmology, as the elephants that support the world. Secondary references are available in the article and cover the subject. WP:BEFORE should be applied instead of Bold blanking and AfD. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hindu cosmology. The article appears to be repeating itself a number of times. CharlesWain (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The concept certainly seems to have real-world importance and sources exist, although I am not completely sure on the extent. A pure redirect to Hindu cosmology is of little help to the reader, as the concept does not yet appear at that page. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate the new sources added. I didn't review the sources but all sections of the article are cited so I'm not sure if the assertions of OR are justified. Let's focus on whether the sourcing is sufficient and of good quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already has sufficient sourcing. Repetition doesn't matter - this discussion is about the notability of the subject, not the current state of the article. The nominator also hasn't explained why "outdated sources" would an issue in an article about a mythological concept from ages ago.

Cortador (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or redirect, possibly to World Turtle#India. The article does need substantial improvement, but not total deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hindu cosmology and World Turtle#India. None of the references treat the subject to be notable on its own. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:12, 12 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!} 04:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prime ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos

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

Fails WP:GNG, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:43, 7 July 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 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, just redirect this junk to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister and do the same with the rest of the mass-produced inauguration substubs. They do not need separate pages just because they happened, this can be covered perfectly well in the respective articles of the presidents. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 7 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!} 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Hai Hum

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

Fails WP:GNG, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:46, 7 July 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 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama: where it's listed, and add a source (https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2009/Feb/26/real-tv-channel-to-go-on-air-from-march-2-28746.html or a more detailed one, like https://nettv4u.com/about/hindi/tv-serials/hindi-hai-hum) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and no sources with indepth coverage. I would not even consider to redirect the page to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama because this page too fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP with no significant coverage that was up for only one year from 2009 to 2010. RangersRus (talk) 12:04, 7 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!} 04:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above: redirects are cheap, and this one is justified by a source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Life and Religion of Mohammed

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

Fails WP:NOTBOOK. I can find no sources on the book or the author of the book, other than catalogue or sales listings. Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. Johnj1995 (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princesa Lea

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

Fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Canada, and Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with some significant roles in notable films (also see Sp WP). And WP:GNG, https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/espectaculos/2021/10/18/princesa-lea-que-fue-de-la-famosa-vedette-canadiense-del-cine-de-ficheras-345367.html https://www.debate.com.mx/show/Conoce-a-las-tres-actrices-del-Cine-de-Oro-que-eran-la-Karely-Ruiz-de-su-epoca-20230117-0311.html https://www.gq.com.mx/entretenimiento/articulo/vedettes-iconicas-cine-mexicano ; https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/arteseideas/Vedettes-femeninas-y-empoderadas-20161206-0102.html among other things. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Slightly Notable, article needs more citations and improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feellingfly (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more, hopefully experienced, editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Asset Management

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources used are either written by the firm's founder or are interviews with him that rule out independence. I so far cannot see any proper independence sources that provide significant coverage on the firm itself. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. 3 gnews hits says it all, lacking third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sreenidhi Institute of Management and Science

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

I cannot find any independent, substantive coverage about this institute. Their FB-page was discontinued in 2014. Fails WP:NORG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P.

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Cannot find any independent sources that provide WP:SIGCOV on it. Imcdc Contact 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and New York. Imcdc Contact 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Zero evidence of notability. I speedied an article about the founder (or "founder"), Asuna Gilfoyle, in May. Gilfoyle was a character in Silicon Valley -- I think A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P. is a joke. JSFarman (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P.'s Securities and Exchange Commission registration: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/329643. I would disagree that it's a joke based on the registration. CacheOverride (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanvikaa

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

WP:TOOSOON. She might meet the WP:NACTOR criteria in the future as her career advances and she gains more references. Charlie (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written. This article has no footnotes, and the only reference is IMDB, which is not reliable. There is a draft, Draft:Sanvikaa, which has footnotes. I have not reviewed the draft in detail, and so do not have an opinion on whether the addition of the sources would satisfy general notability, but addition of information from the draft to the article would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's content reads like an interview with an entertainment/fan magazine. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Campbell

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. No significant coverage of him at all. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STP Kabaty

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG for p[laces explicitly says that they are not presumed notable and must meet GNG. Has not even one reference anywhere near GNG. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The polish wiki has significantly more info.... much of it unsourced. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacja_Techniczno-Postojowa_Kabaty

I assume there might be information in polish to help prove notability, but as I can't speak polish, and polish wiki has no useful citations to help, I'd vote delete unless folks can find them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M1 (Warsaw)#Depots unless sufficient sourcing can be found. Plausible search term, but the sourcing isn't yet there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haqeeqi Azadi Movement

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. There are no references much less GNG references on the subject of the article. The references are all on Pakistan politics in general, not on the subject of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MFK Award for Favourite Male Playback Singer

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. An award for playback singers issued by a TV channel. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Awards, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Trains (open access operator)

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

Page already exists here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains MrBauer24 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Virgin Trains is about a train operator that ceased in 2019, this is about a separate prospective operator with a different ownership structure. Virgin Trains was a franchised operator, if it comes to fruition, this will be an open access operator.In the same way that we have Flybe (1979-2020) and Flybe (2022–2023), same brand, but otherwise completely different. 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenfruy (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As said by Grenfuy, it is a different corporation.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗
00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge as it does not appear the future incarnation is yet notable. Can be covered within the extant article until such time as notability changes and it can be spun out. Star Mississippi 01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virgin Trains per Star. If they win the bid we can consider a split then Jumpytoo Talk 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grenfruy, or merge to a new overview article about the various uses of the Virgin brand in relation to UK railways. I Oppose merging to an existing article because none of those listed Virgin Trains (disambiguation) are suitable merge targets (based on those articles and the dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the same reasons as stated by Grenfuy as it is a different corporation. Rillington (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the new government's stated policy to renationalise the railways, is this proposal even valid any more? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless and until we know a lot more detail about the new plans it's impossible to say whether open access operators will be a feature of a nationalised railway (there are hundreds (at least) of possible structures it could take), but that's only tangentially relevant crystal ball-gazing. This is notable as a proposal (probably individually, definitely as part of a broader article) whether they end up ever running trains or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 11 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!} 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as above, and also worth noting that the new corporation's proposal has plenty of coverage already. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Okagbue

AfDs for this article:

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

I don’t see how this subject passes WP:GNG. The only thing here was that he won the Gulder ultimate search. The rest are just biography with no source. No evidence he won those awards.Since 2023 the issue tag was placed no fixed has been made. Even when I had to google. The news source fails independent as they are likely stating his quote. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funnybros

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

Saw this page and wanted to over look it not until almost all the source, possibly all fails to meet Wikipedia independent, reliable and secondary. No point calling him a musician when all the source are from promotion link and also fails in music notability. Since 2023 issue was tagged but no changes. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage is looking sparse. These two sources might count towards GNG, although they do look low-quality: [21] [22]. I am unable to consistently access guardian.ng. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how those sources you provided meets GNG neither low quality. Meanwhile, i have never heard the word “Low quality” while determining either an article meets GNG or not. If it passes it passes. If doesn’t pass, it doesn’t. You can visit the article page. Check the tag to understand what reliable, independent source it’s all about. The two source you provided failed to be independent because it doesn’t speak from a disinterest of the article subject. Gabriel (talk to me ) 04:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "low-quality" I meant that the tone is tabloid-style and the articles don't contain a lot of independent analysis. The sources use non-neutral language, but I don't see indications that they have a vested interest in the subject. If the articles were sponsored, for example, they would be completely non-independent, but there is no indication of that (unless there's something I'm missing about the sources). Per WP:IIS, "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea." Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources could also be non-independent if the coverage is almost entirely based on the subject's own words, which is possible but not obvious. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand u. But before i nominated the page. The sources are not just making sense to me. The few newspaper that was cited was just all about Meet Funnybros. The rest are from Nigerian blogs and music link containing Apple Music and the rest. Personal life he bought a Benz the two source cited are from blogs that are not reliable besides buying a Benz has nothing to do with notability. Gabriel (talk to me ) 11:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article about a comedian that meets WP:GNG. Appearing in independent sources is notable if not presumably. There is a recognition for his skits but I see some unreliable sources, which can be cleaned. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]