User:Ijey6458/1 day ago

use Template:NOINDEX

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 27	July 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Triáns

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

This page clearly does not satisfy WP:NGEO Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete — regarding WP:NGEO, although WP:NPLACE does say that populated areas are presumed to be notable, I can find essentially nothing in reliable sources covering, or even really trivially mentioning, Triáns. One solitary mention in a document from 1916. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. GhostOfNoMeme 22:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I've changed my mind regarding WP:GEOLAND. I believe it is satisfied. I think Triáns is notable enough and its existence as a legally recognised populated place suffices. GhostOfNoMeme 23:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement, as any look at a map will determine, so satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain how it satisfies WP:GEOLAND?

Note under sources it states: "A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps." GhostOfNoMeme 00:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable... Nothing ambiguous there. It is a longstanding consensus on Wikipedia that recognised settlements are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is presumed to be notable — but as I quoted above, significant coverage cannot solely be maps. Right? For Triáns, there is no WP:SIGCOV outside of maps. Am I misunderstanding the policy? The essay WP:NOTGAZETTEER seems relevant. GhostOfNoMeme 08:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is an essay. And that's all it is. It is a fact that we have generally given verified settlements the benefit of the doubt at AfD. Have you actually read what I wrote below? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
After some consideration I accept your point of view and I agree. I have changed my vote accordingly. GhostOfNoMeme 23:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
delete without prejudice to recreation with enough information and sourcing to allow verification. There's no way to tell that it exists and is a settlement with what we have, and it's not AfD's job to write the article. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Proof it exists and is a recognised settlement. Plus the former parish school is listed as being on its territory. Plus an Iron Age fort. Here is its status as a settlement confirmed on the municipality website. Clear verification of its meeting WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete like nominator said doesn't meet WP:NGEO and this place isn't covered significantly anywhere 92.40.196.243 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep it does meet WP:NGEO - it's a very, very small place, but we can confirm it not just with Necrothesp's sources but using Google Street View of all things, there are signs to it and a sign when you enter the village. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep meets WP:NPLACE as a recognized, populated place. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of stubs on low-populated settlements. Nothing special here. Longstanding consensus is that these are presumed notable. C F A 💬 03:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Saleh Al Abdooli

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

Fails notability guidelines, and there are no reliable, independent sources to verify its notability. فيصل (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

List of disparaging nicknames for settlements in the United States

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

Scope is vague and due to the nature of the article it attracts unsourced information to be added (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep (disclaimer: major contributor). If the scope is vague, propose a move instead. If it attracts unsourced editing, that is not a reason to delete a page. See WP:BEFORE, Point C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Normal editing can fix the unsourced additions concern since undoing edits and rolling back to revisions are core embedded features to both Wikipedia and its extensions like Twinkle and RedWarn. Lack of will to work on a page is not a reason to delete it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NLIST. The best, almost the only, list I can find is The 5 Best North Texas City Nicknames (and Some of the Worst). (Ranker ["The Funniest Negative Nicknames for US Cities"] doesn't count since they rank all sorts of stuff that isn't notable.) Also, universities aren't settlements. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete I'll just take one example I am personally familiar with: "Los Anchorage" for Anchorage, Alaska. Yes, those of us that live in more rural areas use this term dispairingly for people who move to Alaska just to live in an urban nightmare. However the source [1] is just the article's headline, the nickname is not the subject of the article. Seems like most of the sources are of this nature. This is just trivia, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete "Trivia" about sums it up. Qwirkle (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment This appears to be spin-out of List of disparaging nicknames for settlements. There is potential to either smerge this back, or delete the parent list as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge with List of disparaging nicknames for settlements: very selectively, for entries that are well-sourced. The topic doesn't justify being spun-off the original list, nor expanded to the degree it has been. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge as suggested. It’s marginally notable, but a combined list makes sense. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Delete, Merge and Keep. We need to come to a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Mohammed bin Musallam bin Ham al-Ameri

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

Fails notability guidelines, and there are no reliable, independent sources to verify its notability. فيصل (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep Notable as a member of the Federal National Council. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Abdulsalam Haykal

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

Fails notability guidelines, and there are no reliable, independent sources to verify its notability. فيصل (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Syria. فيصل (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

University Hospital Bratislava – Academician Ladislav Dérer Hospital

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment Ladislav Dérer Hospital is just a part of the University Hospital Bratislava, which is the biggest hospital or health care facility in Slovakia [2], consisting of five departments/hospitals. This should be clarified, developed and maybe merged in one article rather than deleted. Certainly a notable hospital. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete Couldn’t establish the notability too. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What possible Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Miika Huttunen

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

Doesn't appear notable, redirect to Pelaaja? IgelRM (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Video games, and Finland. IgelRM (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Iikka Keränen

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

Doesn't appear notable, redirect to Digital Eel? IgelRM (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finland and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect as above or to Doom modding#Commercial WADs. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Prayz Network

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

Subject does not have the WP:CORPDEPTH needed for a standalone article. The only sources currently in the article are primary and a search elsewhere didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, Christianity, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak redirect to List of radio stations in Wisconsin: All of the network's stations are in Wisconsin, and all but one of them (that lone exception being the acquisition of a former non-religious station) were built in the early 2010s — radio stations that new almost never get the significant coverage they would have gotten decades ago. A clear remnant of the "if there's FCC licenses involved, there's some level of notability" stance that was finally shut down by this 2021 RfC (a situation made worse if the network technically falls under the stricter NCORP than GNG). The redirect is only really to preserve this article's own redirects at WTPN, WWJC, and WEQS as {{R to list entry}}s; as "Prayz Network" itself (as opposed to the stations themselves) is not mentioned there, it may be more appropriate to only retarget those particular redirects and delete the article altogether (and to be clear: if it were not for those redirects, this would unambiguously be a delete). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect. The consensus threshold for inclusion for radio station articles is much higher today than it was when I created the article in 2015, and I fully agree with Wcquidditch's assessment of the level of notability of the individual stations. Yet, as Wcquidditch also stated, the article's own redirects could be retargeted separate from "Prayz Network", which itself is not mentioned in "List of radio stations in Wisconsin". Moreover, the network holds a permit for a station in Minnesota, making the list article even less appropriate as a target.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Redirect and Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Matthew Silver (performance artist)

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

Man got wrote up in local papers a few times--this is not enough for notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

note: This article was created ten years ago, WP:PRODded, and recently undeleted as a result of user interest at Wikicurious: Editing Wikipedia for Beginners @ Civic Hall; it was just undeleted, and as far as I know no one had time to add anything from the past 10 years to it, nor has the person who asked for its undeletion seem to have made any changes to it yet. I've added a few links just now but I imagine there are more, as he is still getting coverage, both local and national. Was there a lack of WP:BEFORE? Tduk (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There certainly is a lack of clarity in the history, and a paucity of decent references in noteworthy publications. BTW NONE of that is very clear from the history, and I'm wondering if User:GiantSnowman wouldn't have done better to restore it to draft space. As for BEFORE--well, a Google News search really gives no reason to believe this is a notable subject. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to draftify. Giant Snowman 19:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment. This article was essentially just 12 hours old when it was nominated for deletion. And the editor who requested undeletion (User:WillStopUrThemeSong) hasn't even had a chance to expand it yet (disclosure: I was with Tduk at the same edit-a-thon event and also encouraged the user to do this, they appear to be a perfectly good faith editor who knows about secondary sources etc. and thought they existed). This nomination seems premature - a notability tag and an encouragement to the restoring editor to make sure they get to improving the article would have been better. (Maybe this is an argument to have restored the article to draft space first, but eh, given that it was in the mainspace before and prods are overturned on essentially any objection, I think the direct restoral to mainspace is fine.) See Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. SnowFire (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- SnowFire, the history does not reflect that. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  - My statement is correct. The article was formerly at Matthew Silver and was deleted for 10 years from 2014-2024, you can see this in the logs. If you had clicked on WillStopUrThemeSong's contributions, you could see User_talk:GiantSnowman#Matthew_Silver_Article_Restoration where WillStopUrThemeSong requested undeletion so the article could be expanded. Wikipedia isn't a job, it's completely unreasonable to expect that a user requesting this kind of undeletion be ready to pounce within the hour on the article after undeletion to make the desired upgrades and expansion - it's out of a requesting user's hands when precisely the deleting admin will restore the prod. Hypothetically someone requesting undeletion of a prod could have FA-level, perfectly cited content available, but them not editing it in immediately on a Sunday doesn't mean anything. SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  - Also, on the "12 hours" part - GiantSnowman restored at 06:41 UTC, and you nominated for AFD at 18:48. That simply isn't enough time, especially when the requestor has not made an intervening edit. Like I suggested above, if you thought the article was still deficient, a notability tag would have been a more reasonable way to express this concern, which would allow the requestor time to actually update the article. SnowFire (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: With the links Tduk added, I feel this is a WP:GNG pass now with enough significant coverage, including some national. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 23:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The most recent link was a "know your meme" link from 2017. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  I added some more recent sources; really I was trying to do as little work as possible as this article was revived as part of an editing event, and I wanted it to be used as to encourage a newtime editor and educate on how to bring an article's quality up. Tduk (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Seems he's still an artist [3], but that doesn't prove notability here. The sourcing used in the article is about what I can find, the Rolling Stone piece being the best one. Interesting bit of local history, but I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Entertainment, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Could this article be Draftified? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Could be draftified, but still leaning towards delete, because even if it is draftified, it may still not meet WP:SIGCOV; the sources still do not seem to independent and reliable enough, based on RS Noticeboard Archives. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete Describing someone as "a man who runs around NYC in his underwear saying and doing radical things" covers at least 8-10% of the city's population, and the numbers are often much higher during the summer. Any particular underwear-based street-performing radical-saying individual would need more in-depth reliable and verifiable sources than what's listed in the article. Alansohn (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I've added even more sources. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep Matthew Silver is a well-known artist and is covered by major media. His street performances and media presence meet wp:p standards for notability. Yakov-kobi (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep I feel that with the more recent, less local sources, which are about him specifically, the article is more substantial than when it was nominated. Tduk (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. My previous comment was more procedural that the article should have had more time before being AFD'd, so on the merits... I think Bsoyka's additions suggest that this is certainly on the keepable side. Maybe running around in underwear is silly, but if the press sees fit to write it up, that's still meeting WP:N, and Rolling Stone shows this isn't just local papers (but local papers count too!). SnowFire (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The current version of the article shows sufficient coverage by secondary sources, in particular Rolling Stone producing a documentary short. BrightVamp (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Tom Clancy's Op-Center: Acts of War

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

I could not find a second review to satisfy WP:NBOOK. I found this "review" on publishers weekly though here. My redirect as an AtD was reverted. It may be possible significant contemporary reviews are lurking in newspapers, however, newspapers.com is down for wikipedia editors, so I cannot check. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Along with the PW review, I also found a medium-length review from San Francisco Examiner (via ProQuest), and a fairly long review fromThe Marion Star (via Newspapers.com, works for me for some reason). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
There's about 2.4k hits on newspapers.com, but it feels like 99% of them are just book lists. It took me quite a while to find a single usable review. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per ARandomName. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

John McDonald (American football)

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from multiple secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Indiana, and Kentucky. Let'srun (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment have you tried a WP:BEFORE scan on newspapers? this newspapers.com outage is killing me. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I checked newspapers.com (I have a subscription) and the LOC. Let'srun (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Bassem Fleifel

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

Fails WP:NPROF, fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Lebanon. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing found that would support a pass of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. But there may be a language barrier in play, as most of what little is listed on his Google Scholar profile appears to be in Arabic [4], so if multiple reliably-published reviews of multiple books can be found (regardless of language) I could be persuaded to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Michael Thomson (judge)

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

WP:BLP of a judge, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for judges. As always, judges are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but the sole "source" shown here is a (deadlinked) press release self-published by his own employer, which is not a notability-clinching source, and absolutely no GNG-building sourcing has been shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Ray Oberbroekling

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. This could possibly be redirected to List of Kenosha Maroons players as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to 1924 Kenosha Maroons season as WP:ATD. My searches also turned up no SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Tin roof pie

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG. Only reference is a recipe and WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV for this ice cream cake. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Osirica

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

Purported masonic order that is briefly mentioned in some afrocentric books from George G. M. James, Asa Hilliard and Yosef Ben-Jochannan. The concept is spelt as either 'Osirica' and 'Osiriaca'. Although tagged as a possible hoax, it doesn't seem to be one. The idea exists, though it's not notable enough and the works it appears in are rejected by most historians. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep -- In addition to the (probably not RS) books mentioned above this order is also discussed in C.H. Vail's "Ancient Mysteries and Modern Masonry" and "African-American Artists and Art Students: A Morphological Study in the Urban Black Aesthetic." which is a Penn State dissertation by M.N. DePillars. This is enough to meet the GNG even though these sources aren't currently used in the article. Central and Adams (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you mind specifying the page numbers? I've managed to find online copies of both sources, but I can't find where the topic is mentioned. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep, as per Central and Adams. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep it documents a notable historical and cultural organization that significantly contributes to the preservation and promotion of ancient Egyptian heritage and African identity. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about Osirica's unique initiatives and influence, supported by reliable sources that affirm its impact and relevance.--Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The article talks about a historic masonic order, not a cultural organisation promoting ancient Egyptian heritage. It also has no sources, so where are these "reliable sources that affirm its impact and relevance" you speak of? Sgubaldo (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per a talk page request I'm reopening this discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

MTV2 Album Covers: Guster/Violent Femmes

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

no claim to notability Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 01:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Guster discography#Extended plays per nomination. Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Mike's Weather Page

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

Most of the sources are either unreliable, taken out of context, primary, or just mere excerpts. Additionally, the article reeks of both oversourcing and undersourcing. OhHaiMark (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. OhHaiMark (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Just the first two sources are enough for GNG; I don't see the issues mentioned in the first sentence. Yes, the undersourcing needs work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Wellingborough Aggregates Terminal

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

Does not seem to be notable. PROD was removed on the basis that the electrification trial info should be merged, but I'm not sure what the target would be.... Coverage of the terminal seems limited to the trial. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Satellite EP

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

An EP from a notable band that received no coverage. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Leaning keep: from a quick look I found reviews from AllMusic, IGN and Exclaim!. toweli (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Good finds. Perhaps I should withdraw. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have added the references as ratings. Perhaps someone would like to glean some prose from the reviews. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Boku no Pico

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV and there is a lack of independent sources regarding its controversy, which would seem weird being a shotacon anime sillygirly97 (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Anime and manga. sillygirly97 (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The Meowstro Sings – Guster's Keep It Together

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

While the band is notable and their other albums are, I cannot find any sources to support the notability of this album. Could be merged into Keep It Together (album). Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Keep It Together (album). The AllMusic biography of the band could be used to source the added content. toweli (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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 Withdrawn by nominator‎. There is no purpose served by prolonging this. I made an error in nominating this article (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Sydney Parrish

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

I am struggling to understand how Parrish passes WP:NBASKETBALL. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, and Indiana. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Mackenzie Holmes has a Wikipedia page, why can't Sydney Parrish? She has won multiple awards and honors and received significant coverage. Coolelvin2 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep I am struggling to understand why this is here. A notable player who easily passes WP:GNG with coverage such as [5][6][7][8][9] Alvaldi (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
NBASKETBALL has no women's leagues (i.e. every women's basketball player ever would be deleted if it were the sole criterion) – GNG is what matters here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The non-interview sources provided by Alvaldi each provide multiple paragraphs of significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG,which is all that matters here. Let'srun (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep Meets GNG per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: This individual may not pass WP:NBASKETBALL but certainly passes WP:GNG per the above sources. Garsh (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
WITHDRAW: There is no purpose served by prolonging this. I made an error in nominating this article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Pugese

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

Fails GNG. The only reliable sources covering the crossbreed are focused on Peggy. An article on Peggy might be able to meet GNG but this crossbreed fails GNG and should be redirected to list of dog crossbreeds Traumnovelle (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and United Kingdom. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep (as article creator) - the breed is covered by several websites related to dogs and dog breeds. I think it has enough coverage to pass GNG. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Those dog breed websites cited in the article aren't reliable sources.

They also write the same low quality generic articles on every possible hybrid combination there is. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
They're websites about dog breeds, writing lots of articles about hybrid breeds is kinda the point, no? I'm not sure how they're unreliable or how the articles are generic/low-quality. They clearly aren't made using generic information, they contain specific facts such as litter size, height, weight, health risks, and other information that requires actual research or knowledge about the breed. For example, the wagwalking source contains information about possible eye colors, possible nose colors, coat variations, coat thickness, hair texture, major and minor health risks, brushes used for grooming, and way more information that can't be considered generic. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
How are they reliable to begin with? They assert the same generic information for every dog breed that cannot be sourced anywhere actually reliable, or if it is it is just copied from Wikipedia. These websites plagiarise and bullshit so they appear in search results and advertise dog food or pet insurance.

>they contain specific facts such as ...

And how on earth do they have this information? These are novel crossbreeds so where is the reliable source for this information? How can something with absolutely 0 mentions in veterinary literature have accurate health information about it?

The sites claim the pugese has a predisposition to granulomatous meningoencephalitis, but this is obviously information they've just copied from their article on the Pug into the pugese article without any basic fact checking. The mutation that causes encephalitis in the Pug is recessive and doesn't exist in the Chinese Crested, so a hybrid of those two would not be able to contract it. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Di (they-them). - Sebbog13 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of dog crossbreeds. There are a lot of crossbreeds covered by these breed sites, but none of the sources are particularly reliable or indicate this is a popular mix beyond that it exists. The wagwalking source is the only one with any substance, but reading closely it's entirely generic with copied phrases or generalities about the pug and the chinese crested that they presume apply to their cross rather than actual data. They have hundreds of such pages for mixes, including 33 for pug mixes, which does not establish notability whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Kyla Holas

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

There is no SNG for softball, so the article subject needs to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Under that standard, there is not "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject" that would indicate notability. Additionally, I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. This also fails SPORTSBASIC because I could not find any non-primary sources mentioning the article subject. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sports, Softball, United States of America, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, and Texas. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Sigcov here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Along with the source BeanieFan11 provided, there is [[10]] and [[11]] which should be enough to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Sultan Sooud Al-Qassemi

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

Fails notability guidelines, and there are no reliable, independent sources to verify its notability. Additionally, the article is written in a promotional tone.-- فيصل (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
SNOW KEEP Notability is crystal clear. Good grief, how did this nomination get even made??? https://www.esquireme.com/culture/interviews/the-quiet-influence-of-sultan-al-qassemi; https://www.thenationalnews.com/lifestyle/travel/sultan-sooud-al-qassemi-new-york-breathed-life-into-me-1.772995; https://www.christies.com/en/stories/kawaba-highlights-from-the-barjeel-art-foundation-8a1457215d58408ead418602bce4bf1d; https://www.apollo-magazine.com/sultan-sooud-al-qassemi-apollo-40-under-40-global-the-collectors/; https://sharjah24.ae/en/Articles/2024/02/06/Sultan-Sooud-Al-Qassemi-teaches-modern-Middle-Eastern-art-at-AUS; https://en.vogue.me/culture/sultan-sooud-al-qassemi-arab-art-barjeel-art-foundation-sharjah-art-museum/; https://www.artnews.com/art-collectors/top-200-profiles/sultan-sooud-al-qassemi/; https://apps.npr.org/lookatthis/posts/al-qassemi/; https://english.alarabiya.net/variety/2016/01/12/Art-enthusiast-Sultan-Al-Qassemi-shares-Arab-art-stories-in-London-; https://www.arabnews.com/node/1111311/middle-east. The founder of Barjeel Art Foundation, MIT Media Lab Director’s Fellow from 2014 to 2016, practitioner-in-residence at the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies at New York University and Yale Greenberg World Fellow - visiting instructor at the Council of Middle East Studies at Yale University, the Center of Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, the American University of Paris, the Islamic Civilization and Societies program at Boston College, the Middle East Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School, the School of Arts and Sciences at Brandeis University, the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, New York, and Bard College Berlin. Listed by Arabian Business as one of the world’s 100 Most Powerful Arabs. Published works include Al Qassemi, Sultan Sooud. “The Politics of Egyptian Fine Art: Giving a Voice to the People.” In Arab Politics Beyond the Uprisings: Experiments in an Era of Resurgent Authoritarianism, edited by Thanassis Cambanis and Michael Wahid Hanna, 240–268. New York: Century Foundation Press, 2017; “Toward Abstraction: The Case of Kuwait in the 1960s.” In Taking Shape: Abstraction from the Arab World, 1950s–1980s, edited by Suheyla Takesh and Lynn Gumpert, 107–115. Munich: Hirmer, 2020; Al Qassemi, Sultan Sooud, and Todd Reisz, eds. Building Sharjah. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep There is clear notability on this BLP. Felicia (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep lots of significant coverage. See Google news (ex: this in Euronews.com, this in The Art Newspaper, this in Vogue Arabia, this in The National, this in France 24, this in Entrepreneur, this in Esquire, etc.) I suggest the nominator withdraw because they don't appear to have done a BEFORE. C F A 💬 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Common Intention and Common Object

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

This article does not treat the topic in an encyclopedic way, see WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, specifically WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Wikipedia is not meant to simply publish the text of a law without any context or, as seems to be the case here, a very flawed translation of a law from another language. The topic may be notable, but can only be treated in Wikipedia if enough secondary sources exist about the topic. The only source that was ever used to create this article was a blog and the reference has since been removed from the article. No secondary sources, no encyclopedic article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Pakistan. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Anousone Xaypanya

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

Fails WP:NSPORT/GNG. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources at all. Creator recreated this 3 times in mainspace, then de-proded, so taking it to AfD. C F A 💬 17:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Laos. C F A 💬 17:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete - the only sources available are just lists of player stats, nothing even close to showing notability. StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete - all citations are stats pages. Shinadamina (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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 Speedily deleted‎ as a hoax by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) jlwoodwa (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Easy Air

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG, possible hoax (founder & ceo return no results on Google at all) AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Afghanistan. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, either a hoax or a vanishingly obscure airline per WP:CORP, with nothing about it online, the claimed ICAO designator copied from Eznis Airways, a fake or wrong IATA designator, and the history section clumsily copied from Kam Air. I nominated it for speedy G4 earlier, but the declining admin said that this is about a separate airline from the first AFD. Contributions history and user talk history of the week-old creator account suggests that it's a hoax, and the article's edit history is now showing signs of sockpuppetry. Wikishovel (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete: as a G3 blatant hoax. Fairly obvious. An international airline that supposedly has 500 employees and is the second-largest in a country obviously has to be mentioned somewhere. Airlines can't just randomly fly into countries without regulation. Their IATA and ICAO signs are fake, and I can't find anything, in English or Persian, about the airline at all. The creator has clearly done this before. C F A 💬 18:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:G3. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Not Strong Enough (disambiguation)

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

This most likely qualifies for WP:SPEEDY, per WP:ONEOTHER. A hatnote atop Not Strong Enough already states, "For song by Apocalyptica, see Not Strong Enough (Apocalyptica song)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Disambiguations. C F A 💬 17:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Unnecessary at this time. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Whitenife

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

Although there are some sources covering this company (which led to a declined PROD in 2023), I'm not convinced they provide the genuinely independent coverage needed to pass our notability guidelines on companies. They adopt a highly promotional tone and are often heavily reliant on Agarwal's quotes or interview responses. The article itself also has a promotional tone. – Teratix ₵ 16:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra. – Teratix ₵ 16:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Gramos Incident

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

There are no reliable sources about this alleged military operation. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Greece. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Astro Super-fly

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

Non-notable singer. Only sources are to Spotify, YouTube and some other music player. A search finds nothing to indicate importance. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 17:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Lack of coverage, I can only find his social media, no news coverage or any sort of critical reviews. There really isn't much of anything, lack of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Greta Valenti

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

None of the sources presently used establish independent notability (either due to not saying much about Valenti, or not being RS, or not being independent), and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of Greta Valenti in reliable sources, only mentions. There also seems to be COI editing in the history of the article. toweli (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Louisiana. toweli (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Cross-dressing in film and television

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

This is a list article about an incredibly common trope in film and TV, and, though enormous, is wildly incomplete and biased in its coverage. I've been watching it for a while and it's not getting any better (it has had a citations needed tag for 13 years), plus there is a frequent problem with editors accidentally adding trans characters. I believe the current version fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTTVTROPES, and MOS:TRIVIA, and if there were to be an article with this title connected to scholarly discussions of cross-dressing in media, it might be better to start over. BrightVamp (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Television, Fashion, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep - That's not a good policy-based reason for deletion. The essay WP:NOTTVTROPES is an essay and as such may form the opinion of some users, but also, it more precisely argues how a good article may look like and so the current article could be edited through improvements to the article, not deletion, which centers more on notability and arguably, there is plenty of reliable sources that have discussed the portrayal of cross dressing or drag in film and television that does warrant encyclopedic discussion (such as negative stereotypes of some portrayals and the cultural implication and many other noteworthy things such an article can discuss). As such while even many of the examples in the essay are linked with "bad" and "good" - you can see all of those were improved through article editing, not deletion.

If you have editorial concerns, then you can be WP:BOLD and improve the article to contain more encyclopedic information in addition to the current lists about appearances.

Also, it seems that there is currently a split proposal for the article and an existing draft for the split that had some discussions - Draft talk:Cross-dressing in television#Overlap, list and title issues that you may want to join and help if you are passionate about the area. Raladic (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect back to Cross-dressing#Across media - A quick search shows that the actual topic of depictions of cross-dressing in media is potentially, and very likely, notable. However the nominator is correct this this list is a completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of poorly sourced, largely non-notable trivia, rather than any kind of genuine discussion on the topic based on reliable sources. Further work developing a proper article on the topic should be done at the appropriate section of the main Cross-dressing page, and then potentially spun out to a separate article if needed. The same should be done at Drag (entertainment)#Film and television (which never should have been combined into a single list to begin with), however given the specific title of this article, the redirect only makes sense to point to the Cross-dressing article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Very much support redirecting it, glad to see this topic is well covered in encyclopedic fashion in these two places, including an appropriate number of examples, making this article even more superfluous. BrightVamp (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. ”Wildly incomplete” is not correlated at all with the notability of the topic. It is entirely appropriate to have this topic split out and has more than enough content to justify its own article. GraziePrego (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Carla Guevara Laforteza

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

Very highly advertorialized ("known for being one of the most fearless and versatile Premiere Leading Ladies", "She enjoys watching movies, baking, and absolutely enjoys Cake, Fried Chicken and Pizza", etc.) WP:BLP of an actress and musician not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actresses or musicians. There are statements here that would be valid notability claims if they were referenced properly, but nothing so "inherently" notable as to exempt her from having to cite proper sources just because of what the article asserts -- but this was "sourced" almost entirely to IMDB pages, Wikidata items and other Wikipedia articles, none of which are acceptable or notability-supporting sources, and after stripping those out all that's left is three short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to get her over WP:GNG all by themselves if they're the best she can do for proper third party coverage.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more knowledge about Philippine musical theatre than I've got can rewrite it neutrally and source it properly, but it can't be kept in this state of writing tone and sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Philippines. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
thanks for your comment, we are now currently working with the revisions of the article, the person in this article is also involve now in the revision. Thank you. Jhenie1326 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules, because "the person in this article is also involve now in the revision" is the worst thing you could possibly have said here. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

thanks just for the verification of the information, however the info is now being updated as per the article published by the news or legal website, please be patient.. thank you for your help. Jhenie1326 (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Robin Davey

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

None of the sources presently used establish notability (either due to not saying much about Davey, or not being RS, or not being independent), and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of Robin Davey in reliable sources, only mentions. There also seems to be COI editing in the history of the article, such as edits from User:Growvision01. toweli (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Photography, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Abinsk

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

The two references in the article are to Wixsite, a website maker hosting user-generated content. As it stands, the article violates WP:V and WP:NPOV. Frost 13:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Frost 13:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Could not find any notable sources other than from mirrors of Wikipedia. May be a hoax, given the unexpected lack of mentions for what is supposed to be an important battle. 169.233.113.51 (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Elongated tetragonal disphenoid

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

The article "elongated tetragonal disphenoid" once became the redirected article of gyrobifastigium, allegedly known as its dual polyhedron. No source ever mentioned it in either Google Books or Google Scholars, especially about its dual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elongated_tetragonal_disphenoid&redirect=no

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete, seems to be "something made up", perhaps as a joke or boast, who knows, but it's not sourceable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete. It would make sense to redirect the dual of the gyrobifastigium to the gyrobifastigium, but to redirect this name we would need sources to include the name in the article. I could not find any mention of this name on Google Scholar and the few web sources I found did not appear reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Easy Programming Language

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

Non-notable programming language. The only sources are the language's official website, and I found no online sources in English or Chinese that establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, does not help that searching for easy programming language just brings up a list of languages that are "easy"

but yeah, google scholar search[12] also seems to indicate little to no interest in the language. The current article attracts little attention and is mostly a manual for hello world. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears chinese in origin. If an editor with experience in chinese programming language could help provide info, that would be nice.

There are some sourcing in the chinese wikipedia [13], but they suffer same problem as what nom suggests Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Nominator withdrawal their nomination. . (non-admin closure) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 13:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

G.O.D.S.

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

Fails NBOOK and GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. There is clearly enough coverage to meet NBOOK. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Astaire (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Vivian Jenna Wilson

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

I am unsure she is notable in her own right, she is only notable because of who her father is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CNC (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CNC (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Elon Musk; notability is not inherited. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete - WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria LGBT college student daughter of Elon Musk. Take her estranged father out of this, and you have no article. — Maile (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The key caveat in that policy is "unless significant coverage can be found on A". We have at least ten references from the likes of NYT, AP, etc., specifically about the subject of the article plus others that offer important details about her. QRep2020 (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep per talk page there is a wealth of SIGCOV that constitutes WP:GNG. She has become notable for criticising her father, not because she is mentioned as a passing reference. The criteria for not inherited: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person" therefore doesn't apply. The closest argument here for delete it seems would be WP:BLP1E, but given her transition in 2022 gained significant coverage, this has since expired. CNC (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
"She has become notable for criticising her father", there you have it, she is only notable because of who her father is. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
She has become notable for criticising him, not simply because they are related, and she clearly wasn't notable before simply by being related. BIOFAMILY is quite clear that it refers to being related is not an argument for notability: "Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." (emphasis added). Are you suggesting that all the SIGCOV merely mentions Wilson in passing? CNC (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I encourage all the editors voting for Delete to reflect on CNC's responses here. QRep2020 (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Does it occur to you we have, and do not see any INDEPENDENT notability? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, a decent closer should be able to interpret policy well enough to understand if it applies or not. As no one is yet arguing that Wilson is notable due to being Musk's child, per bad argument, but instead based on SIGCOV and GNG, editors are more than welcome to rebut an argument that doesn't exist. CNC (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Would she qualify for notability if she criticized Musk and was not related to him? – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can extend the counterfactual: Yes, because Musk alleged things about her in public first. QRep2020 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Depends if there would be SIGCOV or not. CNC (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Well we can test this, are there any other articles on similar people, whose only claim to fame is criticising Musk? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
There had been speculation that a personality on X (formerly Twitter) under the name of Adrian Dittman was actually a pseudonym of Elon Musk who was using the alias and account to hype Tesla and Elon, which would violate numerous securities laws. Vivian suggested that the two were in fact the same person. If true, she may be credited with uncovering something material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.222.192.227 (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Or not, we go by what RS say, have RS said this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Anon, do you vote Keep or Delete? QRep2020 (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The vote summary was "reason to keep". [20] CNC (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Good eye. QRep2020 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect or delete. Only received coverage, both in 2022 and 2024, due to a notable family member. Content already included under Musk's "Personal life" section. Astaire (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Doesn't matter what her "coverage" is about, what matters is that tons of third-party independent reliable sources are reporting about her. QRep2020 (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Ongoing and sustained significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in 2022, 2023, and 2024 addresses her childhood, her gender transition, her name change, her estrangement from her father, and, most recently, her response to her father claiming that she was killed by "woke mind virus". These sources all point to a level of notability easily meeting our guidelines. Note that WP:NOTINHERITED is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Justine Musk or Elon Musk for now. It is not clear how sustained her participation in the public sphere will be. She was dragged into the limelight and only made public statements to refute lies being spread about her. It may well be that she sticks around as a public figure, and does merit an article, but I'm not sure that we are there yet. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep she has received significant coverage since 2022 in multiple sources. Meets WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 15:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep

She’s had significant coverage of her own, particularly for criticizing her father. We have articles for things far less notable than that. Snokalok (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep I was initially concerned that she is only known for one event, but the available references cover a span of years. The WP:NOTINHERITED issue is spurious, since the notability claim is not based upon the mere fact of being related to a notable person. We don't delete biographies just because a person is less famous than the very famous person they're associated with. Keeping this article is fundamentally sensible for the same reason that we have articles on Sean Lennon, Moon Zappa, etc., etc. XOR'easter (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete - WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria is very clear about this. "person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A ". The article only ever has relevance to drama with her father, and it makes more sense for this to be combined into Elon Musk. Vangaurden (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep WP:INVALIDBIO says that the existence of a relationship to a notable person is no reason to create the article, but when subject meets the WP:GNG like here, it is fine. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Filip Černák

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

Černák seems to have never played at professional level and his career lasted 150 minutes in total. I found nothing better than Športky, which is a transfer rumor, but am not sure how reliable the source is. Searching for "Filip Černák" on Google come up with other men with the same name instead of this footballer, failing WP:V too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete, GNG failure for player who never got his career fully off the ground. Geschichte (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Jordan Adika

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. All secondary sources coverage is trivial and mentions him in passing in relation to his co-creators. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and England. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Lyndelle Higginson

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:NCYC, WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I found some coverage for her [21][22][23][24][25] She definitely meets WP:GNG and I'm sure there's even more sources for her in Newspapers.com. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. per new citations that were found by MoviesandTelevisionFan.Shinadamina (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Teri Ore

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

Looks like the coverage here is passing mentions in album reviews, interviews, listicles, and viral clips – I'm not seeing a clear WP:GNG or WP:NSONG pass here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 S.V. Notch season

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

Football team seasons in Suriname have never been seen as fulfilling WP:NSEASONS, but I guess this kind of article hasn't really been created before either, so I want a community discussion whether this fails WP:NSEASONS. I personally think this does fail that guideline. Furthermore, I don't see the need for article diffusion since S.V. Notch is a microstub and the Suriname Major League is short as well. Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete – No sources and no relevance. Svartner (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Northpark, New Zealand

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

Not an actual suburb and not notable at all. I am fine with a redirect and merging the demographics to a suitable article. I'm not that fussed on which article it is redirected to. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep It does appear to be an actual suburb. See listings such as [26] and mentions in [27]. This is the third Auckland suburb to be nominated by this user and it's beginning to become disruptive. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
QV is a property listing company, they don't define suburbs and the fact you cannot spot an obvious real estate industry promotional piece is worrying. The second mention doesn't even state suburb. You haven't shown any notability here either. These are trivial mentions and cannot be used to develop an encyclopaedic article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)
Redirect. I've started an AfD on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:07:14:Stacja Techniczno-Postojowa Kabaty; the current consensus is that it is a notable entity but nobody can or cares to add sources to prove it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. STP Kabaty is a crucial element of Warsaw’s metro system, servicing both M1 and M2 lines. It is the only technical support center for the metro in Warsaw and Poland, underlining its unique and essential function. The lack of current sources is a valid concern, but it can be rectified. The article can be improved with proper sourcing and should not be disqualified solely based on this temporary deficiency. Thousands of articles on smaller and less significant railway infrastructure exist on Wikipedia. Deleting one of the larger and more critical stations would be inconsistent and unjustified. The article has been part of Wikipedia for a significant period, and there is generally no consensus for deleting such longstanding entries due to sourcing issues. Instead, there are templates and processes for indicating the need for additional citations and improvements. Paradygmaty (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment. The Polish Wikipedia community has decided today to retain the article. Paradygmaty (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's all about the sources and those arguing to Keep this article have to demonstrate that RS exist to support claims in this article. A source review would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge into M1 (Warsaw)#Depots. Both articles are short. The Kabaty article very short. It's an unjustified SPINOFF even before considering notability and the contents would assist the parent article. gidonb (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Naomi Biden

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

The sources, in order:

1. Less-than-exemplary fast facts article about Naomi in Town & Country

2. List of Joe Biden's seven grandchildren, including Naomi, with fast facts in People

3. Celebrity wedding coverage from Cosmopolitan

4. Passing coverage

5. Wedding coverage

6. Wedding coverage

7. Wedding coverage

8. Apparently the same Town & Country fast facts article as #1

9. Passing coverage

10. Passing coverage

11. Wedding coverage (interview)

12. Celebrity gossip in People (coverage of Naomi being in the Hamptons with Tiffany Trump)

13. Coverage of her and Tiffany graduating college

14. Wedding coverage

15. White House press release

16. Wedding coverage

17. Today Show interview with relatives about Joe Biden

18. Wedding coverage

19. White House press release about wedding

20. Wedding coverage

21. Passing mention in coverage of weddings

22. Wedding coverage

23. Juror says Naomi shouldn't have had to testify against Hunter

So, overall, it would appear that Naomi has done little else to gather press coverage than get married. Lots of rich people get married in ceremonies whose rich and famous guests attract gossipy press. That doesn't establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Police, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
And see the similar Articles for deletion/Finnegan Biden ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep as clearly more notable than Finnegan. Was Finnegan reported in the press for being school chums with a Trump whelp? Did Finnegan testify the trial of Hunter Biden? was Finnegan the first in history to marry on the south lawn of the White House? Hyperbolick (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete per my note below ‎. Bishonen | tålk 06:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Kefas Brand

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

All significant coverage is heavily promotional and seems to come from unreliable and tabloid-like sources. I can't tell for sure that the sources are non-independent, but it is weird, for example, that five of the sources in the article mention the subject's forex trading and radio station. The draft was declined because the sources appeared to be marketing/PR, but it was moved into articlespace without addressing this concern. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note. The subject is the brother of Arnold Namisi, another young entrepreneur BLP currently up for deletion. The brothers have been cross-added to each other's pages by User:LuboneEditors, the creator of Arnold Namisi and indefinitely blocked (by myself) for persistent disruptive and promotional editing. For example, LuboneEditors blanked the AfD for Arnold Namisi. I think I'll just speedy both articles, rather than waste the community's time further. Bishonen | tålk 05:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC).

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uganda. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Akin Gazi

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

Non notable actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Cowlibob: I suppose that WP:NACTOR is more likely to apply. Regarding its criteria: 'Such a person may be considered notable if:

1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.'

I think 1) is more likely to apply. I can see from his page that he has appeared in almost two dozen films and television shows which are sufficiently notable to have their own article. Do you accept that they are notable? If so, is your case simply that his roles are not significant? How do you believe that a significant role is defined for the purposes of notability in WP:NACTOR? Is there a guideline or 'case law' supporting this? Thanks.

Jontel (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak KEEP Gazi's article seemingly meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR i.e. 'Such a person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...' in that he has appeared in multiple (around two dozen) productions which have their own articles (and so are presumably notable) and his generally mid ranking in credited roles are presumably sufficiently significant. The case for keeping the article is strengthened by a career duration at this level of almost two decades WP:SUSTAINED. However, without searching through the reviews of his productions, there appears to be little independent reliable secondary coverage of him, which would be required to pass WP:BASIC. The key guiding text appears to be: 'People are likely to be notable if they meet (WP:NACTOR)...(However)...meeting (WP:NACTOR) does not guarantee that a subject should be included.' i.e. WP:NACTOR alone is not sufficient for notability. Given his roles in so many notable productions, is there a case for giving editors time to find the coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC, as suggested in WP:ATD, by leaving it for a period? Jontel (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Maharashtracha Favourite Kon?: or keep as a WP:SPLITLIST. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Pablo Lopez Luz

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

WP:BLP of a photographer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for photographers.
This is trying for "notability because awards", but that doesn't just indiscriminately hand an automatic notability freebie to every winner of just any award that exists: an award has to itself be notable as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it. So notability can only derive from awards that can be shown to pass WP:GNG -- that is, the source for the award claim has to be evidence that the media consider said award to be significant enough to report its winners as news, and cannot just be the award's own self-published primary source content about itself. But the award claims here are referenced to a primary source rather than a reliable one, and that's the only source in the entire article, to boot.
Since I can't read Spanish and don't have access to the kind of archived Mexican media coverage that it would take to improve this, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody with better access to such tools can find enough to salvage it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just a single primary source for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Mexico. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: some coverage of this person [28] and [29]. The first mostly gives a critical explanation of his work. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wayne Simmons (commentator)

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

WP:BIO1E. Coverage is only around his odd legal case 10 years ago of impersonating a CIA officer and committing fraud. He's just not notable outside of that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: There's plenty of coverage about him, but nothing past 2016... Still, he was rather "popular" for lack of a better term until he got caught. Semi-notable fraudster, unlike so many others that have articles here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
!Weak keep given only because there's also some discussion of his activities in peer-reviewed journals, this was the first one I pulled up [30]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Articles in The New York Times (March 2015), Rolling Stone (January 2016), Time (October 2015), in Australia (October 2015), Canada (October 2015), China, etc. make him a notable fraud. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete doesn't have enough reliable and independent information to prove he's notable, the article fails to meet WP:NBIO. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Iași (1653)

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

A single publication ~~by an unkoen expert by nonnotable publisher~~ is insufficient for notability of an event, whose description per se is barely two phrases: "they attacked, they retreated" The cited source does not even mention the term "Bate of Iasi".- Altenmann >talk 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Tomasz Ciesielski is a professional historian and the claim that he is not an expert as you claim is total nonsense and stupidity of the submitter of this article I am in favour of keeping the article AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Please provide an evidence that he is a recognized expert. - Altenmann >talk 18:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

you have on the Polish nicely written who he was after all he is even the director of the History of the University of Opole [1], he has various scientific works, and his sources are used by the English wikipedia, the Polish wikipedia and the Ukrainian one, please do not write nonsense next time just check it out. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I see, sorry. Somehow I missed him in Google among numerous other Tomashes Ciesielskis. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

so why do you not retreat the Deletion request? Axisstroke (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep Per AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
We !vote here not per wikipedians, but per Wikipedia rules, which say "multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in detail" Now, which sources discuss "Battle of Iasi (1653)", in your opinion? - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete with regret after wading through a bunch of machine-translated sites. I couldn't find any RS in English so I tried searching "Bătălia de la Popricani" for Romanian results as well. The ones that looked best were: [31] (not exactly SIGCOV though); [32] (Vice has no consensus in terms of reliability, and I'm not seeing any sources in the article that we could follow for more info). There might be something in [33] but I think someone fluent in Romanian would be needed to translate. And even assuming it's reliable and there's at least a few pages on the battle, that's two sources at best if we also accept the Vice article. There simply doesn't seem to be enough. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if there is one or two sources what matters is its credibility I know the rules say more than one but if it is credible and recognised in the historical community such as books from Cambridge university then I don't understand removing article one. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please tell us which books you have in mind which write about Battle of Iași (1653). - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless, in Wikipedia there is a clear distinction between "credibility" and "notability". Expert historians with years of research in some time period would probably write somewhere about every Battle of Asshole Pass (Polish: Potyczka na Dupskim przełęczy); that's what experts do and are respected for. But not every skirmish makes its way as a separate entry in encyclopedias. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per lack of sigcov. Yilloslime (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear opinions from more editors. This will probably not take a full week but please offer policy- and source-related arguments instead of "per X" ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Draftify/Weak keep: The event is real and not spamy. But, there is no reliable resource that support the event over Internet. But, I think there could be hard copy materials in Libraries and maybe some interested individuals would bring them and include to the article so it is better to give editors chance to edit it. Instant History (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Guru Vandana

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article is a dictionary entry. C F A 💬 19:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: There are several sources that contain significant coverage of this topic: [34] [35] [36]. There are probably more sources that are not in English. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Belongs to wiktionary. No significant coverage of the concept, even in the sources cited above. - Altenmann >talk 22:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. It does look like a simple dictionary entry. No WP:SIGCOV and not much to discuss to develop an encyclopedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. This article is a dictionary entry at present, but Helpful Raccoon's sources show that it could certainly be expanded beyond that. In the meantime, we might want to redirect this somewhere - if anyone has an idea as to where, I'd be interested to hear it. If we don't come up with a good redirect location, the article should be kept. -- asilvering (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom Lordseriouspig 07:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect lacks of enough reliable sources to stand alone. Instead, Its content fits well within a broader article about Hindu rituals and the teacher-student relationship in Hinduism. Yakov-kobi (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Worldwide Attack Matrix

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

Fails WP:GNG. There was one article with WP:SIGCOV written about the document presented one time to the CIA Director, but its notability is not WP:SUSTAINED. There are a few WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, but nothing speaking to its lasting importance as an important document notable enough for a WP article. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Edgardo Defortuna

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

Edgardo Defortuna

There are two problems with this biographical article about a Florida businessman. The first is that violates neutral point of view. The second is that it does not satisfy general notability.

The article reads as if it was written by the subject's real estate company, because it may have been written by the subject's company. The last two paragraphs, Philanthropy and Civic Involvement, and Honors and Awards, have no references. They were written to describe the subject as favorably as possible. The section on Family Matters and the Next Generation is also a puff piece, and is mostly about his wife rather than about him.

The references are not independent coverage, and mostly read like press releases. References 3 and 4 appear to be variations of the same press release.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.islandernews.com	An interview in a Key Biscayne newspaper	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.forbes.com	An article by a Forbes 'contributor'. These are considered unreliable.	Maybe	Yes	No	?
3	therealdeal.com	A profile that reads like a press release from the subject	No	Yes	Maybe	?
4	commercialobserver.com	Another profile that reads like a variation of the same press release	No	Yes	Maybe	?
5	www.bizjournals.com	An article for paid subscribers only.	Assumed to be No.	Yes	Probably not.	?
6	mlmiamimag.com	Another interview that appears to have been provided by the subject.	No	Yes	Probably	?
7	therealdeal.com	Another press release	No	Yes	Probably	?
8	sfbwmag.com	Another press release	No	Yes	Probably	?
9	www.bizjournals.com	A press release on acquisition by Christie's	No	Yes	Yes	?
10	therealdeal.com	Another press release	No	Yes	Probably	?
11	sfbwmag.com	An interview with the subject's wife	No	Not about the subject	Probably	?
12	hauteliving.com	Another interview with the subject's wife	No	Not about the subject	Probably	?
13	www.culturedmag.com	An interview by the subject's wife about a real estate project	No	Not about the subject	Yes	?

This is not the first article about this businessman. A prior article in 2017 was deleted as G5 and G11. An article on 6 June 2024 was deleted as G11. A draft was created on 19 June, and this article was created on 25 July, by the same editor, and they are similar. This article and the draft may be toned-down versions of the spam piece; I have not seen the spam piece and do not want to see it. The Heymann criterion is to find three independent reliable secondary sources within seven days. Otherwise, the originator will be able to find real sources for the draft and submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and Florida. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert. This was super helpful. The article was edited to improve the neutral point of view and include reliable sources. I'd like to clarify that The Real Deal South Florida article on Edgardo Defortuna was an editorial feature and not a press release, but open to your feedback on how to rework. I also included more references in the Philanthropy and Civic Involvement, and Honors and Awards. I also removed the lines about his wife that were not relevant to Edgardo's article as a whole. Let me know if this is better and looking forward to additional feedback on how to improve this. Thank you again! Ashthetic (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Café Hagen

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Non-notable small restaurant chain, fails WP:SIGCOV and generally WP:NCORP. I understand more could be added, but as it stands, the entire reception section is "Aimee Rizzo included the business in The Infatuation's 2023 list of Seattle's best cafes for getting work done." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Washington. CptViraj (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep per GNG. Sorry, but this feels retaliatory to me, as I recently complained about a Good article review completed by the nominator. With sources like this, this, and this, I do not agree with the nominator's rationale, and if nominator "understand[s] more could be added" then I would ask for an expansion tag instead of jumping to AfD. I agree that the article could be expanded, but we don't just delete underdeveloped pages. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Link 1: Author "covers the food scene in the neighborhoods around Seattle." Local coverage of Seattle restaurant for Seattle audience. Weak at establishing notability.
Link 2: Contibutor to very local magazine. Not WP:RS, fails WP:AUD. With lines like "Beck knows it takes the right people to create a warm atmosphere and a future for the business", I doubt it passes WP:INDEPENDENT.
Link 3: Author self-identifies as marketer, unclear whether this piece was paid for. Fails WP:INDEPENDENT.

I do feel a lot of the subjects of articles you are writing about are not notable, which multiple editors ([1], [2]) have raised independently. I also think you do great work on Wikipedia, in particular, I think your writing style is very lucid. I am a vindictive person, but this is not an example of that.

I was referring to integrating the other "reviews" that are already in the article into the reception part, not that other sources are out there. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like you're trying to stir the pot, so I will not be commenting further. If editors want to delete this page, so be it, but please leave me alone. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep — Has over 20 news sources, and the article has been expanded to include more information. Roasted (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Which sources do you think constitute WP:SIGCOV? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Meets GNG. More than enough significant coverage:

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:CFA
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/take-in-the-full-hygge-experience-at-south-lake-unions-cafe-hagen/	Listed on WP:NPPSG	Entire article is about the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.king5.com/article/entertainment/television/programs/evening/scandinavian-cafe-seattle-cozy-hygge-hagen/281-f02a8719-a5ff-408f-a7fa-56e3ca6cb311	Local news	Entire article is about the subject	✔ Yes
https://hoodline.com/2020/01/new-scandinavian-spot-cafe-hagen-debuts-in-the-cascade/	Local news	Entire article is about the subject	✔ Yes
https://dailycoffeenews.com/2020/02/25/coffee-meets-hygge-at-danish-inspired-cafe-hagen-in-seattle/	Reputable subject-specific magazine	Entire article is about the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.thestranger.com/things-to-do/2019/12/13/42277170/a-hygge-scandinavian-cafe-and-more-seattle-food-news-you-can-use-december-13-2019-edition	Local news	~ Section dedicated to the subject	~ Partial
https://issuu.com/specialpublications-ppc/docs/qam_11022022#google_vignette	Local news	Front-page article is about the subject	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

This is not including most of the additional less-significant coverage, like sections in "best coffee shop" lists, for example. I suggest the nominator withdraw. C F A 💬 03:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Battle of Jhain

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

This article clearly fails WP:GNG & full of WP:SYNTH mess and WP:OR. There is not any battle named as the "Battle of Jhain", the name of the battle is fabricated Ha shid 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep- A battle happened in Jhain during Jalal-ud-Din Khalji. The book 'The History of India' mentions it. Medieval India, Volume 3 also talks about the campaign. Early Chauhān Dynasties also mentions it. Though it was not called as 'Battle of Jhain' by any historian so it could be renamed. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Changeworld1984 Battle of Jhain isn't any official battle, it was a minor conflict during Jalal-ud-Din Khalji's Ranthambore campagin which turned out to be unsuccessful Ha shid 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If it’s not called “battle of Jhain” by any historians what are we calling it that for? What do they call it? Mccapra (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Article passes WP:GNG and is well cited with reliable sources. Article suffers less from WP:SYNTH or WP:OR and more from non-encyclopedic writing style, which isn't means for deletion. An example would be "Some sources say ..." John.mark1956 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Per above Lordseriouspig 07:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Bhimadeva

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

MOS:DABMENTION requires "If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page". "Bhimadeva" is mentioned only in Bhima of Mahikavati, probably not a good target for a redirect. I suggest this page is deleted in order to enable uninhibited use of Search. A PROD was reverted by @Utcursch: with edit summary (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=bhimadeva+caulukya) without editing any targeted article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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!} 17:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep Bhima I now, quite properly, also mentions "Bhimadeva". The stipulation in WP:DABMENTION gives as the rationale for its claimed requirement "since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic". In this case the links obviously would help the reader so this is one of the occasional exceptions the MOS allows for. Thincat (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Language-barrier keep. "Bhima" is in the dabbed article names, and "dev" shows up in the article bodies. I am not familiar with that language, but there seems to be some grammar thing going on that makes this dab page worthwhile. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Amit Malviya

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL, Till date he has not won any election, he is just the head of the IT cell of the ruling party, whose job is to spread fake news all day long. You can also read about his fake news here. Youknow? (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Youknow? (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The previous AfD you nominated was closed as Keep, as consensus determined he meets GNG. There is no need to meet NPOL if GNG is met. What is your opinion on this? GrabUp - Talk 15:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Grabup, Thank you for your comment.
Most politicians who contest elections or are at least active in politics meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:GNG. Therefore, even if they fail to meet the specific criteria outlined in WP:NPOL they should still be considered for having Wikipedia articles.? What is your opinion on this? Youknow? (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@Youknowwhoistheman: Yes, NPOL is an additional criteria, and the General Notability Guideline (GNG) is the main or core guideline to establish notability. If a person or a subject meets any of additional criteria or GNG, then they will be considered notable. For example, let’s assume this politician does not meet GNG or NPOL, but he wrote some books that received reviews from multiple independent reliable sources. Then he will meet WP:AUTHOR, so the person will be treated as notable even if he fails GNG or NPOL. Hope this clears things up. GrabUp - Talk 16:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@Youknowwhoistheman: Hey do you agree that the person meets GNG? GrabUp - Talk 07:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to say but your argument is not logical. According to this reasoning, Wikipedia should abolish its criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL). If everyone is to be judged by the same Wikipedia's general criteria (WP:GNG), then what is the need for having specific criteria? Because every local leader also passes the general criteria. Even a person who loses an election meets the general criteria in some way or another. So, should all of them also have a standalone Wikipedia article? Youknow? (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Youknowwhoistheman: No, your thinking is wrong. During the general election in India, I saw nearly 50 articles about politicians that were deleted via AfD. Not every politician meets GNG, and not every politician meets NPOL. These criteria are necessary. Here are some examples of past AfDs.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratikur Rahaman

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emaan Singh Mann

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kriti Singh Debbarma

GrabUp - Talk 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I can show you hundreds of such politicians who are passing the WP:BASIC, but are not on Wikipedia because they are not passing the WP:NPOL. Anyway, there is no point in arguing. Let the rest of the editors decide. Youknow? (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep as below:

~~Delete~~ : Probably doesn't meet NPOL, but he doesn't seem to be a politician... He also doesn't meet FILM, but he's not a film, so the nom seems incorrect. In addition to the sources from last time, this [37] and this [38] show coverage, more than enough to meet notability, GNG in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Oaktree b: Hey, I think you put the wrong vote. You said he meets GNG, so why did you vote Delete? Maybe it was a mistake? GrabUp - Talk 16:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, good catch. I wanted to !keep. Let me fix it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Clearly meets GNG. It seems the nominator thought politicians must had to pass NPOL to establish notability, even if they pass GNG, which is incorrect. Notability will be established if any of the criteria are met. GrabUp - Talk 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: meets WP:GNG Madeforall1 (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete there are many people who have numerous media sources writing about them but this doesn't makes them notable. The subject in this case seems to be affiliated to biggest political party of India and hence we can see good number of sources about them. However, most of them appears to be paid articles. I recall how one of my article Vikas Shakya was deleted despite having many sources. The reason sought was paid editorials being used as sources. Here, in this case, it is possible that we are witnessing same case. The person is clearly not fulfilling WP:NPOL as he has not been elected to even local level body and I doubt the sources used are free from bias.-Admantine123 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Admantine123, can you point out which articles are the paid ones, for the benefit of other editors? Or point out the ones that aren't paid, if that's easier. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Çomment WP:NPOL is *not* a guideline that can be failed, that is, if a subject does not satisfy the criteria it does not mean they are not notable for Wikipedia. NPOL is an inclusive measure, not exclusionary. NPOL sits separately from the GNG because it provides "presumed notability" - the idea being that a person elected to office is generally likely to have SIGCOV in reliable sources. FWIW, no comments to date have indicated why sourcing presently in the article does not satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: he's a troll, but a notable one. Here's an article by AltNews on the disinformation he has spread on social media; an article by Business Standard on Malviya - Rediff has the unpaywalled version. Not to mention the Jansatta article cited in the article already. Sufficient material to cross the bar of WP:BASIC, all told. Java Hurricane 12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Meets WP:BASIC/GNG. Articles do not have to meet applicable subject-specific notability guidelines to be considered notable. GNG is the main guideline — generally, if any topic meets GNG, it is notable enough to have an article. SNGs were created to be able to bypass this requirement for some topics (e.g. academics and politicians) that editors have deemed should have encyclopedic articles regardless of coverage. C F A 💬 03:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

AfDs for this article:

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

All the problems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination) remain. These sources are fringe and mostly unreliable even for basic factual claims, WP:SYNTH is rife, and the conclusions of fringe sources are being misrepresented as mainstream. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to compare this to the previously deleted articles? I'm curious to see what has changed to allow this article to continue to be reintroduced. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

~~I vote Merge into IQ and race~~

Also, this article reads like multiple POV-forks in each section. Portions of it seem racist to imply that Jewish people are significantly smarter than anybody else, while others talk about the backlash to a single study. The genetics portion implying intelligence is also racist.

I think I would change my vote if there was more information about this put in besides that one study. Some thoughts:

Various sociologists in the 80s/90s suggested that the unique background/talmudic studies of some Jewish peoples makes them effective scholars. There were some sociologists who suggested that, as well as Malcolm Gladwell. Not sure exactly if thats true, there is likely a fair bit of back and forth on that as well as a possibly controversial opinion too.
It could be possible to include information about Model Minority myth in this article.
Agree large portions of article are WP:SYNTH including the humblebrag about the representation of Jewish people in various roles.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

~~In case there is any confusion, I changed my vote to Delete discussing with folks below Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)~~

Nishidani is right. We need to stop WP:TNT like the past few AfDs, and address the issue head on that we should still avoid WP:PROFRINGE while still recognizing this is clearly notable, even if the sourcing is biased.

IDK if i wanna vote delete or keep at this point. Maybe this article still deserves to be [[WP:TNT}}, but we should try to get to an actual consensus that leads to a real article.

Maybe this should just be called Jewish Intelligence Theory or Jewish Intelligence Stereotype. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Threw some more sourcing at it. Honestly, still think it should be merged into another appropriate article tho. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's better, but I don't think that's enough. Citing Lynn as though his garbage studies mean anything, even with qualifications, is still a WP:PROFRINGE issue. As I said back in 2020, if the article only exists to explain why a debunked study is not even wrong, then is should be rewritten to serve that goal. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah, agreed.

Sidenote, why specifically ashkenazi jewish intelligence, instead of broader jewish intelligence? This article's subject is so strange to me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(a) Sephardim are not, apparently, reported to score as high; (b) seems sensible insofar as "Jewish intelligence" probably makes people think of the Mosad instead, IDK. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete ~~or merge~~. Adding enough context to satisfy the requirements of WP:FRINGE would make the article a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Race and intelligence, but with a shallower pool of sources. The few bits that are specific to Ashkenazi people or Jewish people – Cochran's ideas, Talmud study, the role perceptions of intelligence might play in overall views toward Jewish people – are too scattered to make "Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence" a coherent topic for an encyclopedia article. Jruderman (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Based on discussions below, I'm not seeing much content here worth summarizing into other articles, nor compelling reasons to include any mention of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence in most of the related articles. Maybe it's worth a mention in History of the race and intelligence controversy, but even then it would be better to draw from Henry Harpending's section or Bret Stephens's section rather than from this article. As a result, I am shifting my stance to simply "delete". Jruderman (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep There is a vast body of literature that discusses the special role of jewry as a (proto-)object of racism; there also is a large body of research (Cochrane, Glad...) concerning purported (self-)selection trends in historical Jewish populations; there is also a vast body of literature concerning their psychometrics. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore, massive removals of text on the same day this AFD was opened[39] suggest either possible tag teaming or, at least, a problematic attitude on the part of Bluethricecreamman and Grayfell. (I will archive this page privately to document such practices in any case). Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete or merge. I agree with Jruderman here. So much more context is needed for this page to meet the requirements of fringe. Given how frequently this page comes up, I think we should consider salting the page or creating a redirect and locking edits for non-admin. Mason (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

One question: how would it work if, for example, I myself eventually had an article that met a reasonable person's requirements for NPOV, notability etc. (Say in Draft space); now, don't tell me, the Wikigods all need to agree before it'd be reinstated? Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

just ask an admin to move a draft into article space. if you believe all the admins are biased wikigods i suppose thats your problem then Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

ive done the process before, in general if you reasonably solve the critiques in the article, admins are happily amenable Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess I could have been less sassy. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete and do not merge without positive consensus at Talk:Race and intelligence. Similar content has been discussed numerous times on that article's talk page and I don't believe that there has ever been consensus for inclusion. Also note that the Race and intelligence article is under a special sourcing restriction imposed by ArbCom, so including non-academic sources, even in the interest of WP:FRIND, would be disallowed. If I'm not mistaken, all the fringe-independent sources in the article currently up for deletion here are non-academic. And in the absence of acceptable fringe-independent sources, the WP:FRINGE guideline is clear that we must remain silent. Generalrelative (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
ah.. didn't see that. agree entirely, seems its been debated to exhaustion on that page.
possibly appropriate talk sections:
- Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#No_evidence_for_Jewish_IQ_advantage
- Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_102#Ashkenazi_Jews
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete A poor article with mostly very weak and shite sourcing (Charles Murray, Richard Lynn) and newspapers. Newspapers can be good sources for biographies but not for an article like this. It's not worth merging. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination), you'll see that this article has been nominated no less than 8 times under different page titles for deletion consideration and was always Kept until this last AFD. With such a track record of being Kept, I want there to be a very clear consensus on what should happen this time so that we are not back here for a 9th or 10th AFD discussion. It would help if participants reviewed past AFD discussions. I also question whether a Merge to Race and Intelligence is appropriate if this idea has been rejected on that article Talk page and, my own question, whether it is appropriate to consider one branch of Judaism to be a "race".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment its hard to tell what the merits of the previous arguments were, as the deleted page from the past few nominations is unseen. Is there anyway to show more page history or something?

It also seems much of the commentary as the years pass on has been on the debunking of many of these studies from pop-culture tidbits of "wow science can explain race difference in a post-racial society" to "wow, can't believe we tried to believe we were post racial when we were publishing WP:FRINGE articles about how genetics prove the stereotypes about different racial groups" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

tally results from previous AfDs.

1) [40] no consensus, basically equal deletes and keeps

2) [41] keep, the article is poorly written but has significant notability

3) [42] speedy close, the nominator gave no reason, so closer is probably right

4) [43] speedy close, nominator gave reason, closer just angry that nominator tries again?

5) Cannot find this? the numbering system gets weird, and an admin attempted to delete and salt this page to supposedly prevent further nominations? [[44]]

6) [45] Speedy keep, closed after 2 days? also weird, this is somehow both 6th nom of Ashkenazi intelligence and 1st nom of Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence. notably, user who closed is blocked for 3 months from WP:ARBIPA topics due to editwarring, so I think the speedy keep might have been biased.

7) [[46]] Delete, tons of sock puppet activity to Keep.

all this means to say is this article obviously brings up significant tensions, and the AfDs for this page haven't always followed what seems like a clear protocol. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps it would've been more definitive to use a clean slate for this instead of what I did for this nomination, but our time on Earth is limited, and rehashing this discussion didn't seem worthwhile. If anyone is coming here who doesn't know the history of this general topic on Wikipedia, maybe start with Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ. The gist is that Wikipedia holds these articles to a high standard for a variety of reasons, based many years of history and tedious discussion. Sources need to be high-quality, and context needs to be provided, and right now this article fails to do that. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for digging. Here's what I see in the six previous discussions:

Two discussions were from 2007. Many comments focused on notability. I don't know how strong Wikipedia's RS and NPOV rules were back then. Their combined interpretation at WP:FRINGE was just reaching guideline-level consensus at the time.
The next three don't really count: they were speedy'd because the nominators didn't do their job of connecting their rationales to Wikipedia policies.
The last, in 2020, was closed as TNT only. It did not come to a conclusion about whether another article at the title could be acceptable.

There are many good comments in the previous discussions, but their closing results have limited bearing on the delete reasons we are discussing today. Jruderman (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Q: Would it help to invite more editors to this discussion? I believe it would be considered nonpartisan to post at the Fringe Theories noticeboard, on Talk:Race and intelligence because we're continuing discussions from there, or on talk pages of not-yet-explicitly-ruled-out smerge targets: Gregory Cochran, Ashkenazi Jews, History of the race and intelligence controversy. Or on the talk pages of participants in the previous AfDs (perhaps just those who are extended-confirmed and still active). Jruderman (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You can if you want.

I would strongly oppose merging to Cochran's article for multiple reasons, so if anyone wants to actually propose that we can discuss in more detail. Any other article would still have to summarize reliable, independent sources. Right now the article is mostly journalistic opinions, and some of these are fringe sources, as well. This seems undue for a topic as broad as Ashkenazi Jews. With better sources it would be easier to evaluate where to merge. With any merge, the goal isn't "how do we preserve this content" it's "how do we proportionately and neutrally summarize this topic?" Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The existing section at Gregory Cochran could use some contextualization or rebuttal, but looking at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence again, I don't see anything worth moving to the Cochran article. Jruderman (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Same with the slightly-better section at Henry Harpending regarding the same paper. Jruderman (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, this thoughtful discussion is what I was hoping for rather than a quick close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete per the arguments to that effect above and my !vote from the 2020 discussion, since nothing has happened in the interim to make the situation any better. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the same reasons given in Liz's comments at the first relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've sent info about the discussion to WP:FT/N

Of note, there has been no noticeable improvement to the article in the past two weeks, and much of it remains citations of fringe sources, and debunks/reactions of the fringe sourcing, which probably is still too much WP:PROFRINGE to be worth keeping. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fringe content cobbled together from inappropriate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep if only because the topic has an extensive literature, barely scratched by the article itself. I see a lot of nervousness in these repeated attempts to erase a stub because it touches on a topic that is variously perceived as racist, as a put-down of an outgroup and a proud vaunting of the compared ingroup (Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending's paper became, in Steven Pinker's words, 'a target of harsh denunciation and morbid fascination.'), as too politically incorrect even to mention. The fact remains that:

The discussion is out there, and it has been held in the press, in synagogues, and before a sold-out audience at the Center for Jewish History in New York City’(Pinker 2005) Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science:The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-226-20140-5 p.178

This is a 19th century myth, recycled because developments in genetics, and a number of provisory results, led to attempts to repackage it on empirical grounds, transforming a negative stereotype into a positive typecasting. So in terms of intellectual history it merits coverage; it terms of widespread diffusion it deserves a comprehensive, astringently neutral analysis per sources like Sander Gilman, our preeminent expert in this kind of argument (Sander L. Gilman, Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence, University of Nebraska Press 1997 ISBN 978-0-803-27069-5)

So symptomatic fits of nervous nellydom are quite out of place, certainly in a deletion argument. A topic that has a large range of secondary sources, that has stirred scientific and public controversy; that is widely misinterpreted; marked by conceptual clumsiness by its promotors and anxieties by its critics, obviously requires an encyclopedic entry. What we have is pathetic (too much edit-warring, not very informed or competent, but there is a real opportunity here to make a very good article based on high quality sources. In such cases, deletion is sheer laziness, an invitation to relax in shiftless torpor rather than creatively rise to a challenge when the alternative is simply hard, focused work reconstructing it in terms of contemporary scholarly commentary.Nishidani (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a good article about this topic maybe could be written, but the problem is that the current version is so fundamentally bad that it would require essentially rewriting from scratch, and the article would be subject to endless POV pushing that would ultimately degrade it to an unacceptable quality. I am also not finding any good sources on this topic other than the Gilman book. I think a section should probably be added to Stereotypes of Jews, which if warranted could be expanded into a full article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the version that existed before it was hacked to pieces. What we are looking at is the article after it was bombed by excisions. Gilman's is not the only book. The whole 2005 controversy eventually generated a thesis about modernity in Norman Lebrecht, Genius & Anxiety: How Jews Changed the World, 1847-1947, Scribner 2019 ISBN 978-1-982-13422-8. The problem is that few wikipedians statistically appear to edit articles in extenso, but nearly every wikipedian is interested in talk page comments.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The real problem is that Wikipedia editors have decided many of the available sources about Ashkenazi intelligence fail the requirements of WP:RS policy. That's why they keep being removed. Some examples from the time of the previous AFD are the edit summaries here and here. This way of understanding RS policy is one of the aspects of the topic that's been receiving media attention, most recently on Richard Dawkins' Twitter. And it's what will have to be addressed before there can be a well-sourced article about this topic. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

that second source is apparently neoconservative biased as per the wikipedia entry. richard dawkins twitter is also not relevant for establishing reliability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

the article had previously been deleted before, and ive been curious about the sourcing of much of the previous version of the article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There are two options. A stub or poorly worked article can be removed/erased/expunged. When you do that, the topic itself as an encyclopedic entry disappears. No passing eyes will be tyempted to improve what isn't there. Or, one can look at the RS, ascertain if the topic is noteworthy (it is) and improve it. I've done this several times at AfD, and, in several hours, once the article is placed on a strong footing, the AfD is dropped. So the real issue is, is the topic noteworthy? (See below. It is). If so, then why make the article disappear rather than roll up one's sleeves and imprtove it. Just consistently removing stuff, and not replacing it with better sourcing, is bad practice.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The following don't fail RS and deal with the issue, and reminding editors that an abundant literature on the topic exists will not change this negative vote, and therefore I, for one, anm not going to waste time over several hours to show how the article can be rapidly rewritten into a near GA articled (because it will be erased). I don't know how many were used in the past and erased, but anyone, anyone can see at a glance that the topic is very well documented in RS.

Charles Murray, Jewish genius Commentary April 2007
Norman Lebrecht Genius & Anxiety: How Jews Changed the World, 1847-1947, Scribner 2019 9781982134228
Bret Stephens The Secrets of Jewish Genius:It’s about thinking different,' New York Times 27 December 2019
Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science:The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-226-20140-5
Steven Pinker Groups and Genes,' The New Republic 26 June 2006
Jennifer Senior, 'Are Jews Smarter? New York 14 October 2005
Raphael Patai, Jennifer Patai The Myth of the Jewish Race, Wayne State University Press 1989 ISBN 978-0-814-31948-2 pp.173-175
Natural genius?The high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past The Economist 2 June 2005
Sander L. Gilman, 'Are Jews Smarter Than Everyone Else? In: Medicine, Mental Health, Science, Religion, and Well-being (A.R. Singh and S.A. Singh eds.), MSM, 6, Jan-Dec 2008, p41-47.
Sander L. Gilman, 'Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence,' University of Nebraska Press 1997 9780803270695
Outcry after NYT writer appears to argue Ashkenazi Jews are genetically smarter Times of Israel 29 December 2019,
Noah J. Efron, A Chosen Calling: Jews in Science in the Twentieth Century Johns Hopkins University Press ISBN 978-1-421-41381-5
Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, Henry Harpending. "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" , Journal of Biosocial Science 38 (5), pp. 659–693 (2006)
Richard E. Nisbett, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, W. W. Norton & Company 2010 ISBN 978-0-393-07141-2 pp. 171
R. Brian Ferguson, How Jews Become Smart: Anti-"Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence", Rutgers University 2008
Nicholas Wade, "Researchers Say Intelligence and Diseases May Be Linked in Ashkenazic Genes", The New York Times, 3 June 2005
Gavin Evans, "The unwelcome revival of 'race science'". The Guardian 2 March 2018
Steven M. Bray, Jennifer G. Mulle, Anne F. Dodd, Ann E. Pulver, Stephen Wooding, and Stephen T. Warren. ["Signatures of founder effects, admixture, and selection in the Ashkenazi Jewish population"], Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 14 September 2010;
Christopher Wills, "Review: The 10,000 Year Explosion by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending", New Scientist February 11, 2009. 46–47.
Maristella Botticini & Zvi Eckstein, "From Farmers to Merchants: A Human Capital Interpretation of Jewish Economic History", Discussion Paper No. 3718. Centre for Economic Policy Research (2003).

Apparently in deletion discussions, evidence (that this quick summary of easily googled sources) doesn't matter.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah, going off what you suggested, the last AfD was advocating for WP:TNT. The deletionists did not advocate that the topic wasn’t notable.

I still have some questions about some of the sourcing or presenting this uncritically, but its def notable.

I will say, much of the secondary sourcing here is a part of that discredited 2005 study. I would much rather have an article discussing this topic as to a stereotype for a model minority than trying to do pseudoscience to promote racial science. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Would like more sourcing about the ethics of this science, the stereotypes effects, etc.

As we have a week’s time, I might try my hand at adding more to this article again. ty nishidani! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It's true that google throws up a lot around the 2005 article, but, if the idea illustrated in one version by an article that fails to convince its peer community gets traction, we should cover it. If only in order to allow readers quick access to what the best scholarship says about it. I think on of wikipedia's function is to elbow out meme replication, i.e.,by eluciding per secondary sources what some controversial idea states, and its reception history. This, per several scholars, goes deeper than that 2005 study however, and Gilman is a superb source on its historical context - things like the envy, resentment and rancour felt by many at what was, in large effect, the implementation of a Protestant work ethic in a rising non-Christian minority of the population.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Mind you, I remain completely open-minded about this issue. I wouldn't exclude a priori that there are populations which, statistically, appear to display a significant, on average, higher IQ (and that is a relative definition of intelligence: I recall reading in 1965 a study that suggested poets did poorly in them) than other contiguous groups. Some communities have a markedly higher longevity than their neighbours. In both cases, it does not mean that, Ashkenazi are all more intelligent by genetic endowment, or that Sardinians are all stocked with better longevity genes. In any such population dumb schmucks or those who die prematurely before the national average will abound. I don't believe one should feel intimidated or uneasy about any kind of high order research that appears to upset the applecart of our common democratic beliefs in equality, which is a legal ideal, not a biological reality.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nishindani, I'm just checking back in on this discussion, and I see that you've provided some excellent sources. I would object to calling e.g. Charles Murray or Nicholas Wade reliable secondary sources on this topic, and from a quick glance some of the sources you list don't appear to discuss the topic directly, e.g. Norman Lebrecht's Genius & Anxiety, despite what one might surmise from the title. But other sources like Nadia Abu El Haj and Sander Gilman look good. Whether this should redound to a "Keep" or a redirect to Stereotypes of Jews as Hemiauchenia suggests, I'm not yet sure. I'll look into the sources some more before deciding whether and how to revise my !vote, but in any case I thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur that that Charles Murray and Nicholas Wade are not RS on the topic of intelligence. I don't think the "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" is particularly reliable either, given the controversial associations of its authors. For a contentious topic like this we would really want to look to academic sources rather than to newspapers which tend to be less reliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only is "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" primary, it's unambiguously WP:FRINGE per the established consensus on race and intelligence. We can still mention it in article space of course, but only to the degree that it's discussed in reliable WP:FRIND / WP:SECONDARY sources. Generalrelative (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should remain skeptical of science being used to advocate for stereotypes, for good reason as well. like generalRelative states, there are charlatans in this field who have polluted a lot with poorly done science to advocate for stereotypes, and extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof before we present too much of it without appropriate criticism. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V and WP:PROFRINGE. The occurrence of several earlier deletion discussions should encourage advocates of "keep" to work hard to get the article in good shape -- unless the article is hopeless. The fact that this hasn't been done means that it's time to delete it. NightHeron (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The article has not been allowed to get 'into good shape' because of relentless excisions. Anyone could put the article 'in good shape' were the deletionist impetus less relentless so that it could be improved.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Shin SD Sengokuden Densetsu no Daishougun Hen

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

The article has been flagged for notability and lack of sources since 2016. A search for sources has found nothing, I'm nominating it for lack of notability. Brocade River Poems 01:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to SD Gundam#Musha Gundam series as an alternative to deletion. --Mika1h (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Lil Phat

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

When your biggest claim to fame is a single guest appearance on a more notable rapper's (Webbie) single and the only coverage is of your death, it's a pretty clear instance of WP:NMUSICBIO. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 00:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state), Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Independent (song). Someone searching for Lil Phat in that context is pretty likely. Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Kazakhstan national baseball team

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

Unable to find any sources providing WP:SIGCOV about this team to meet the WP:GNG, which has been tagged as unsourced since 2015. From what I can tell, the team isn't ranked by the WBSC as seen at [[47]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Baseball, and Kazakhstan. Let'srun (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: +1 to Let'srun. Can't find citation to prove they even exist. John.mark1956 (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Malaysian representatives at international male beauty pageants

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage from reliable sources as a group to meet the WP:NLIST and as it stands this is WP:SYNTH. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, Lists, and Malaysia. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)