Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 13	July 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to University of Texas at Austin#2024 Pro-Palestinian Protests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas at Austin stabbing

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. A non-fatal stabbing where a single non-notable person was injured, no deaths. The citations in the background section do not mention this incident as they predate it. There was a brief burst of coverage that it happened and the perpetrator was indicted without hate crime charges (covered only by local media) and there has been no coverage since, failing WP:SUSTAINED.

Additionally, there was a fatal mass stabbing at this same school in 2017 that is substantially closer to passing NEVENT that we do not have an article on (imo it still doesn't pass NEVENT but this is to make a point): the reason this article exists appears to be the Palestine connection.

Due to the circumstances it can probably be merged somewhere if anyone wants that but I have no ideas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Palestine, and Texas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with appropriate article listing instances of anti-Palestinian violence in the United States or the West in general. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition to that, but could you suggest a specific target? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a cursory search and did not find any. Perhaps "Anti-Palestinian racism" has a section on U.S. incidents. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is notable as a prominent and specific example of Anti-Palestinian racism, which is precisely what made it stand out as an event against the background noise in the US. It does also have sustained coverage, with the event continuing to fuel the discussion on hate crime in the US some ~~six~~ two and a half months later. Yes, the only reason this topic is notable is the hate crime element ... because that – the context of the violence, not its form – is what is notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who has declared it "prominent"? It made the news for three days and then dropped off the map. It does not have sustained coverage, and there has been no proof of that presented. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got the dates muddled: it's two and a half months later with the update, which you know about, do clearly not three days. More generally, one might just say: wait! There's hardly even time for it to be discussed in other mediums than news yet, so it's hard to know what else is expected. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A two month update saying it wasn't a hate crime from a local news outlet with no further analysis or retrospection? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to University of Texas at Austin#2024 Pro-Palestinian Protests per other users and WP:NOTNEWS. One injury, no deaths. Jiminy Christmas, this shit happens every day around the world. Wikipedia is not a crime blotter. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to University of Texas at Austin#2024 Pro-Palestinian Protests and also mention at List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States in 2024#UT Austin, which seems like the main article about the protests. This article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:NOTNEWS. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Texas at Austin#2024 Pro-Palestinian Protests per HopalongCasualty. Unless it became a standard case study or prompted some major societal change, there is absolutely zero reason why "guy stabs guy in a scuffle" should be considered a notable historical event that warrants its own article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If someone wants to work on a version of this in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Site News

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

Fails GNG. Sources are either non-independent or focused on Ryan Grim. Could be redirected/merged but I am unsure which article a redirect should point to. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:SIGCOV. A handful of references, most of which are articles covering Ryan Grim's departure from The Intercept. This Semafor reference, for example, does not even mention Drop Site News by name (~~its use as a reference for the claim "The Intercept provided startup funding for Drop Site News" therefore also fails verification~~ - has been fixed). Another reference belongs to CounterPunch, a generally unreliable source (WP:COUNTERPUNCH). Another reference, to The Hill, is merely an embedded 10-minute YouTube interview with Ryan Grim. Keeping WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:ARTN in mind, I should note that I'm unable to find any additional coverage in reliable sources. Almost every reliable (or somewhat-reliable...) source that even contains the text "Drop Site News" has apparently already been included in this article, as best I can tell. As it stands, Drop Site News lacks any kind of notability. A few mentions-in-passing and incredibly brief coverage do not suffice to establish notability. I see some mentions (in talk pages and edit descriptions) of the article's presumed future notability as further sources are anticipated to become available; I think, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, that this is WP:CRYSTAL and not a valid argument for keeping the article. If it becomes notable in the future, it can be recreated. As for the idea of a redirect, I don't think it would be appropriate at this time; instead, mention of Drop Site News could easily be relegated to a few sentences in the respective articles of Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill - I'd be open to being convinced otherwise, though! GhostOfNoMeme 07:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "...therefore also fails verification", sorry, I mixed up the references. Fixed. Legoktm (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well no problem — thanks for fixing. :) GhostOfNoMeme 14:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted elsewhere, I think it's on the edge of notability; I expect outlets like Columbia Journalism Review and Semafor to do in-depth coverage soon enough. I don't object to moving back to draftspace pending said coverage, I largely moved it back into mainspace because the person who originally drafted it was indefinitely blocked for UPE. Legoktm (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to it being moved to draft space until notability can be established. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notable already with the two writers associated with it — Drop Site News is being searched for here and on the internet, which is how I reached the stub... _ _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Drop Site News does not become notable simply due to the notability of its staff or any other involved persons. See WP:NOTINHERITED. GhostOfNoMeme 15:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since their launch, they've already done foreign reporting using sources within an influential terrorist organization. While that might be of questionable ethical value, depending on how one views the duties of a journalist, it definitely would seem to suggest that they're well-resourced and will continue to do notable cross-border coverage of one sort or another -- which, importantly, they have already done (in other words, we're not predicting the future here). I'd say the article should be kept, even if the outlet in question is unlikely to ever make it onto the list of neutral information sources for other articles. Drabconcert (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt they're in a good position to become notable. But per my response above, and others, they're not yet covered by a sufficient number of reliable sources in any real depth. WP:SIGCOV might not be far off, sure, but we aren't there yet. Just many WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. I'd be happy to contribute to any draft article that arises. Currently, fails WP:GNG. GhostOfNoMeme 21:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete - notability is not established by reliable sources, it is not automatically inherited from its founders, and Wikipedia does not predict the future to say it might be established as notable later on, that's one of the functions of draftspace. The article in its current state is not really about the organization at all, it's a WP:COATRACK for Instagram's takedown of the interview with one of the founders, which happened before this organization even existed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as fails WP:GNG. At best WP:TOOSOON applies. Brief, trivial, or passing mention so far. Any context needed in a given article can be included in that article (e.g. "is a news website created by 2 guys"). Basically all we know from reliable, independent sources is that it exists, and was founded by 2 notable journalists. It went live less than a fortnight ago, it has only 2 reporters and 1 editor, and it's on based on a Substack platform, making it awfully close to, if not literally, a self-published source. Just as we don't immediately create articles on journalists just because their articles get published in notable outlets, we should not immediately create articles for every website/blog/substack/ created by notable journalists (far too many Wiki articles on outlets and journalists, even notable ones, become trivial, promotional showcases of "on this day, X published an article. Then a few days later, X published another article. Here's the title. Ain't that neat!"). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. after article expansion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decoded (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Film has not been created or released yet and little to no coverage. The only source provided is a link to the film's trailer. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and China. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and improve with Chinese sources (see WP in Mandarin). Release announced for August, 3, notable director, notable cast. This kind of Afds just before announced release are not really a good idea imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NFF. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. It does meet that guideline imv: sources on the page or existing online can confirm "production itself" has attracted attention. Added some to the page; there are more. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The film is set to be theatrically released on 3 August 2024. It makes no sense to delete the article now only to recreate it two weeks later. I have also added 15 sources from Deadline Hollywood, The Beijing News, Shanghai Daily, Yangtse Evening Post, Yangcheng Evening News, Modern Express Post, Beijing Youth Daily, Hong Kong Economic Times, Oriental Daily News, and China News Service, covering production details, character descriptions, premiere and awards, and the scheduled release. (See Special:Diff/1234570644) It demonstrates that the production of this film is significant enough to meet GNG, and principal photography has wrapped back in January 2024, satisfying WP:NFF as well. Furthermore, it has already won 4 Weibo Awards and features a notable cast (John Cusack, Daniel Wu, Liu Haoran, and Chen Daoming) and crew (Chen Sicheng and Cao Yu), fulfilling the additional criteria of WP:NFO. I see no reasonable basis for deleting this article, on the contrary, there is a wealth of evidence supporting for a Keep. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 01:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffering (2011 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Sources provided are unconvincing. IMDB is not a WP:RS. The other two are links to basic details of the film. Nothing provided that has covered the film significantly. No reviews, no nothing. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: review at DVD talk (see page) and review here.Brief review at Filmdienst (German). Review at Cinemagazine (Dutch). So that, significant coverage in independent and reliable sources existing, the page can be retained. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reviews mentioned above such as DVD talk and Cinemagazine.nl, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviews in DVD Talk, Cinemagazine.nl and Edge Media Network (here) should be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security Compass

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Specifically lacking reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Canada. Brandon (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Procedural close as keep. Either accept Jclemens's close of the DRV where they say:

When all the dust settles, cooler heads will determine whether this should be a standalone article or merged into Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per BLP1E, and keeping in mind especially clause 3 thereof

or have the DRV close overturned (oh joy!). Either way starting a second AFD is not the right process. Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Matthew Crooks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BLP1E currently and the article in it's current form just forks information from the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump article but adds in tabloid-esque speculation on his political beliefs by including adoxography on the shirt he was wearing and what his classmate said about his high school beliefs. Article should be redirected to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump where the same information is re-iterated. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close. We just did this. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's not. There's a process and we should give at least one full day to consider opinions instead of the rushed (and botched) discussions that have occurred so far. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it was subject to a DRV that was only closed on a technicality. Keep discussion focused on the actual article now please. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also please read through WP:SKCRIT. It doesn't apply here, so please give an actual argument instead of writing useless comments. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't even a valid technicality, Jclemens closed it against all guidance at WP:DRV. The closure was more disruptive than the DRV discussion being started by a sock... —Locke Cole • t • c 21:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Locke Cole; the prior discussion did not have adequate time for a discussion and given the highly contentious topic and BLP concerns an admin should be endorsing any close or decision. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. This is pointless. We had an AfD; it ended with a large consensus to keep the article. We then had a deletion review, which was closed in favour of endorsing the AfD's closure. This is pointless. GhostOfNoMeme 21:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Terrorism, and Pennsylvania. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. Subject has been documented clearly. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. I'm definitely of the opinion that eventually an article can exist on its own, but there's little now that couldn't just be merged into the assassination attempt article. WP:TOOSOON, WP:BLP1E. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 47.39.189.151 21:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W A I T !!! Shouldn't this be a Deletion Review, not another Articles for Deletion???

Redirect and merge into Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, echoing User:Locke Cole – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per all of the above. No reason there should be another AfD this close to the prior’s speedy keep. Booyahhayoob (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Continue to expand the article. GoPats (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've had this discussion. Killuminator (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close. People want to read about the profile of the shooter on this kind of events. Wikipedia can be a reliable source for people to read about this subject, otherwise they will find untrusted sources to read. Wikipedians should be improving this article by reading the sources, improving redaction, improving the references, instead of erasing content and articles. It would be better if Wikipedians help to improve the quality of this article on the following days, and after a couple of weeks they can take the decision of merge this content with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump or not. Martiniturbide (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institut privé de préparation aux études supérieures

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

Nothing in the article suggests this institution is notable (fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - the article in French has several referenced articles, and there are a few more that can be found with a Google search ([1], [2]).
BilletsMauves^€500 14:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with User:BilletsMauves. And notable alumni and teachers.--McSyl (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There do appear to be sufficient available references, e.g. Le Monde. The article needs improvement but references in reliable French-language sources exist, so WP:GNG is met. GhostOfNoMeme 19:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Suni

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

References are a mile wide and an inch deep, primarily including the subject's own LinkedIn page, writings, patents, and grants. BD2412 T 20:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finland, and California. BD2412 T 20:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An inventor with patents, is not notable... I can find this reference [3] but it could just be a similarly-named individual. Otherwise, I don't find any sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Medicine, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not understand how this page survived so long. It has massive peacock claims, none of which are verified by sources that are searchable. For instance the only mention I see in Google for [4] is in fact this page! As just one other, the claim of "Father of Digital Radiography" is unsourced, and not in the Digital radiography page. The onus is on the editors of the article to provide properly verifiable sources for the various claims, WP:BURDEN. Unless they do this, and it seems it has not happened for many years, this should be a Speedy delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jessup (writer)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a writer of speculative fiction. I have found and added one reference, but it is either an interview or an article by a friend (named author who introduces the article, but the bulk of it is by Jessup). The article already references the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which I think is a reliable source, but as the only reference which demonstrates notability I don't think it's fully evidenced. The article only needs a couple of reviews from reliable sources to meet WP:NAUTHOR, but I haven't been able to find any. Unless anyone else can, I don't think the article meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Two book reviews [4] and [5], there might be more. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've added the PW review to the article. Haven't added the other as it is just one sentence. Tacyarg (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one sentence? Try [6] Geschichte (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added that to the article. Tacyarg (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw (as nom) - two reviews found by Oaktree b, article meets WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need at least some material to source the biographical stuff. Or, it could just be removed.

I found more reviews, including another one in PW and one in The Future Fire [7] Here is a shorter one in Reactor (magazine). The next one is from Wired, but is primary, starting off with "My friend Paul Jessup": [8] Had you heard about Werewolf News? Me neither. (Blog, not reliable.) Geschichte (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, one of the above-cited reviews is a Kirkus Indie review, which does not count towards notability per WP:KIRKUS. On the other hand, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, mentioned in the nomination, is most certainly a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the earlier mentioned reviews, Publishers Weekly reviewed more of his novels (link 1 and 2) while I also found other reviews out there (link 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) along with the previously mentioned short interview in Wired and this article in the Washington Post. Overall, there are enough reviews and press coverage to meet our notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ per reasonable requests Star Mississippi 00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important People (2023 TV series)

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

Can't find it passes WP:GNG. Literary no review at all. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Sourcing from the CBC is an interview with the host, but talks about the show. The Variety article shows this is up for an Emmy award and briefly talks about the show, also showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep? So you aren't sure for Keep? All interview is primary, not mounting to WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviee is with the person, but it supports an article about the tv show. The Emmy nomination makes it notable rrgardless.Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction: The show has only been submitted for Emmy consideration; the official nominations won't be out until next week. That's why I didn't mention it anywhere in the article yet. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait until next week I suppose to see if it makes the final list for the award. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article creator here. Honestly didn't expect it to get to get promoted out of the draft space; I wasn't sure if it had enough, so I submitted it to get insight on areas for improvement, maybe see if coverage increases substantially should that Emmy nod go through. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the article should be kept since I'm obviously a little biased (though I will say starting a delete discussion minutes after someone accepts the draft doesn't seem kosher), but if it does get the axe, I'd prefer it get moved back to the draft space so I can continue source-hunting and working on improving it. Thanks much. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage cited shows it meets the requirement for GNG. I cannot understand the nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which coverage? Please enlighten with STA. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what STA is. Examples of significant coverage and significant mentions, see page for sources of some.

Very Important People has seen host Vic Michaelis interview an assortment of characters that really can’t be described in just a few words. From Vic’s Ex-Step Grandmother (Lisa Gilroy) to Mental Health Advocate Tommy Shriggly (Zac Oyama), every improvisor brought a uniquely wild energy to Dropout’s short formseries, matched by Michaelis’ ability to perfectly adapt to every situation while keeping up their host persona. After being given full makeovers—including makeup, prosthetics and costumes—comedians come up with a character to sit down for a fully improvised interview.
(Deadline)

unique interview series
(Variety)

A sort of elevated reboot of an older CollegeHumor sketch, Very Important People tasks improv comedians with giving spur of the moment interviews after sitting through some truly incredible makeovers: ones that throw costumes and even prosthetics at blindfolded guests, leaving them transformed into aliens, misshapen body builders and, occasionally, screaming cavemen. That leaves Michaelis as the host: a character also named Vic Michaelis, though here they're playing a journalist who is in no way, they stress, the same person as themselves. That unflappable cable access-esque character is drawn from Michaelis's love of TV personalities from Carol Burnett, to Mary Tyler Moore, to Lucille Ball: all the "very physical femme comedians."
(CBC)

Dropout loves improv, so what better than to gather the cast, give them complete makeovers, and have them interviewed by Vic Michaelis, where they create their character based on the makeover they were given! (...)Very Important People is hilarious. It lets the cast get into their element and do what they do best. There are so many unforgettable and hilarious moments throughout the show, from mental health advocates to the second pig of the three little pigs. The show has a vibe and a type of humor that you can not find anywhere else, and for that, it definitely deserves a watch.
(Afterbuzz)

an improvised interview show, for the Outstanding Short Form Comedy, Variety or Drama Series category, as well as submitting its host, Vic Michaelis, for Outstanding Actor in a Short Form Comedy or Drama Series.
(134th St)

We don’t often talk about the niche streaming services at ScreenHub, but I can tell you right now that Dropout is definitely worth your time and money. Featuring improv comedy shows, live DnD games, and unique game shows lead by some of the funniest people in the US right now, this rebrand of College Humour has some excellent and unique offerings that set it apart from other subscription services. My favourite of the bunch at the moment is Very Important People, a show where comedians are put in a mystery costume and must come up with a character on the spot, before being interviewed, in character, by host Vic Michaelis.
(ScreenHub AU)

Mulligan also recently appeared on Dropout's Very Important People where Vic Michaelis and another comedian sit down for a fully improvised interview. The comedian who is the guest on this talk show has had a complete make-over with costume, prosthetics, hair, and make-up all changed to create a character who they will have to originate backstory for on the spot. Mulligan joked about how he doesn't remember anything from his time as Augbert, but praised Michaelis.

ScreenRant

And I will leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The show doesn't currently (article or elsewhere) have significant reliable independent coverage sufficient to meet GNG:

The CBC interview would be non-independent by default but some of it has additional significant independent qualitative coverage. (Y)
The Variety article only has passing coverage N
The Deadline interview is non-independent N
The Observer is a student newspaper and I believe while independent/reliable should have low weight (xref WP:UNIGUIDE) (Y)
The Polygon article is non-independent N
The Webby's award is a public web-vote and not the expert-voted Webby award, and is thus insufficient/unreliable for consideration of acclaim/impact. Even if it were the expert-voted Webby award I think it would be low weight given how many Webby awards there are (see the popup menus from the category sidebar at https://winners.webbyawards.com/winners) N

That said, I think it has a reasonable chance of an Emmy nomination given that its category is such an oddball one and there will be 5 nominees from only 22 on the longlist even before considerations of the 24000 eligible voter pool potentially skewing slightly in favour of Dropout, and Dropout fans really liking Dropout shows. If it is, then between the nomination and the second season and the awards We may sometime actually get sufficient independent qualitative coverage, but unfortunately it's not there yet for me.

(BTW, for anyone unfamiliar with the show, youtube has the first episode - enjoy)

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update on this: The list for this year's awards has come out, and no Dropout productions were nominated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The CBC article alone makes this pass GNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - entire AfD discussion seems to be in wrongway. The nomination was placed per lack of notability per minimal

criterion but some are commenting that the CBC interview alone passes the criterion. Is it a rationale AfD discussion? If so, then we have to accept many AfC drafts with single coverage. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, redirect to Dropout (media company) § Current and upcoming as an ATD. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For Indian TV Series, we don't accept any draft not meeting WP:THREE concluding WP:SIGCOV. Then why this one should be exempted? I wished for a fair debate which is not yet demonstrated. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Hydronium Hydroxide's source analysis and the creator's request. I don't see sufficient significant coverage but it's reasonable to expect more. Contrary to one of the "keep" !votes the show has not been Emmy-nominated, just submitted for consideration, so it doesn't pass on those grounds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Compton, California. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank G. Bussing

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

Bussing isn’t presumptively notable as a politician WP:NPOL. Mayors from Compton shouldn’t be presumptively notable by virtue of their positions, they have to pass other criteria. Bussing also fails WP:NPOL since he didn’t get elected for HoR. Also fails WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Compton, California.Djflem (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Compton, California, where the subject is listed. We do not presume notability for local elected officials. --Enos733 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into List of mayors of Compton, California. Information on the article would be fine included within the target article. Bussing is not notable on his own per available information, per nom. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Compton, California. Fails NPOL. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Compton, California. Bussing does not appear notable enough to merit his own article. Fails WP:NPOL as per nominator. A redirect is appropriate. GhostOfNoMeme 19:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rabih Bou Rached

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

Promotional BLP of a successful businessman with no real claim of notability. Various non notable awards and ROTM coverage in the form of interviews and PR profiles. Mccapra (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Lebanon. Mccapra (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Invested a million dollars in his business [9]. Typical PR items, I don't see any coverage we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the sources fail the test of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Available sources, both here and in WP:BEFORE search, are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (i.e. WP:INTERVIEWS), WP:TRADES coverage or both. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Co-counselling or a section thereof Star Mississippi 00:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Counselling International

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

Contested blank-and-redirect to Co-counselling#Co-Counselling International. Insufficient secondary coverage of this organization, and article is promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Co-counselling#Co-Counselling International: though even that section needs a lot of work and potentially shouldn't exist at all. No WP:SIGCOV of the organization. No point in merging anything because the content missing from co-counselling is all promotional junk. The BLAR was contested by John Talbut, an employee of the organization — if you're going to continue editing these articles, please disclose your COI on the talk page of the article to avoid confusion. C F A 💬 20:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've removed most of the blatant unsourced promo from the main article's section. C F A 💬 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  And I found and added a Guardian article that covers a lot about this organization's origins. Anyone should feel free to mine it for more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CCI is a peer network that I have been active in for many years. It does not have employees. People who teach co-counselling, of which I am one, may be paid, usually by participants or in some cases by outside organisations such as schools or colleges. John Talbut (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You literally have "Formerly UK Contact Person for Co-Counselling International (CCI)" listed on your profile. Regardless, this is still a conflict of interest that has to be appropriately disclosed. C F A 💬 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the link shows, I am not anonymous and my biography is publicly available.John Talbut (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had to get to the categories before I found out this article is about counseling as in mental health and not counseling as in lawyers. EDIT: Fixed and sourced. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is simply descriptive of Co-Counselling International as it is. There is plenty of secondary cover available, as can be seen here: https://www.co-counselling.info/en/biblio John Talbut (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a single paper on the website you linked that was secondary. They were all written by Co-counselling International. Some of them, in fact, were written by you. This is not secondary coverage at all. C F A 💬 03:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to do? Co-Counselling International is an active international network as is evident from following the web links referenced. You seem to be trying to delete most references to it. Do you have a COI? Co-Counselling International does not write anything, all contributions are made by and are the responsibility of individuals. Naturally a lot of the references are internal because they are about the network. If you think the article needs improvement please suggest how. John Talbut (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a COI. I had never seen this article before it was listed at AfD. Being an "active international network" means nothing when it comes to notability. Please read the notability guidelines for organizations:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

There is not significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources — which means it is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The references you listed above are all not independent of the subject and thus do not count towards notability. If you have any policy-based evidence that the organization is notable (WP:NORG), now would be a good time to share it. C F A 💬 16:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to AfD secondary references independent of subject https://www.academia.edu/33733482/My_Early_Engagement_with_Humanistic_Psychology

Also

https://www.martinwilks.com/research/1.1Co-counselling.htm

which is best accessed from http://www.martinwilks.com/my-research/ Pbgvbiker (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Pbgvbiker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Source one is written by John Heron, the founder (?) of Co-Counselling International: the exact opposite of independent. Neither is the page you listed — the author is involved with the organization. Not sure about its reliability either way. On another note, it's interesting how this account has only ever made one edit: the reply above to this seemingly-random AfD.

Looks like a duck to me. C F A 💬 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Co-counselling. The Guardian piece has a single-paragraph WP:TRIVIALMENTION of this organization. The sources related to John Heron or the South Pacific Centre for Human Inquiry fail the test of independence from CCI. It's a complete fail to meet the standards of WP:NORG. (The redirect target itself needs a lot of work for NPOV, essay issues and apparent pseudoscience but that's for another day.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Santa (upcoming film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM as release date not announced. Existing sources are nowhere than procedural announcements only. WP:DRAFTIFY should be the better option. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has been accepted through AfC. Filming has started. Even if this is never released, cast and director are extremely notable and most of all, coverage presented in the page or existing online is sufficient to satisfy the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films says:
Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. ...
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.
The sources verify that the film commenced principal photography in March 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. The production is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.
Sources
1. Ho, Rodney (2023-03-16). "Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers reunite for 'Dear Santa' comedy shooting in metro Atlanta". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article notes: "Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy “Dear Santa.” ... Black was seen in downtown Decatur last week shooting the film and he posted an Instagram photo from the set teasing the movie’s thematics in what appeared to be a Christmas village. ... Others in the cast include Robert Timothy Smith, Keegan-Michael Key, Brianne Howey, Hayes MacArthur, PJ Byrne, Jaden Carson Baker, Kai Cech and Austin Post."
2. Kroll, Justin (2023-03-15). "Jack Black & The Farrelly Brothers Reunite For Christmas Comedy 'Dear Santa' At Paramount". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article notes: "The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Black recently teased the project on social media when he posted a photo of him posing with Christmas decorations with no context — it got everyone talking about what it could be."
3. Couch, Aaron (2023-03-15). "Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers Team for Paramount's 'Dear Santa'". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  Thea article notes: "After more than 20 years, Jack Black is reteaming with his Shallow Hal filmmakers the Farrelly Brothers for the Paramount comedy Dear Santa. The feature centers on a child who intends to write a letter to Santa Claus, but mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer. The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt, the writer behind the 2005 Johnny Knoxville feature The Ringer. The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen, known for the John Cena comedy Playing With Fire."
4. Bedard, Mike (2024-06-03). "Jack Black Is Unrecognizable As Satan For A New Christmas Movie". Looper. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article notes: "Following his previous Christmas movie, 2006's "The Holiday" — where he was half of one of the most memorable holiday movie couples ever as Miles — Jack Black is dipping back into the Christmas spirit with a decidedly different project and character. Now fans can see him become unrecognizable as Satan on the set of the upcoming flick, "Dear Santa.""
5. Hedash, Kara (2024-04-03). "Post Malone's Next Movie Is More Promising After Road House's $85 Million Success". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article notes: "Next up, Post Malone will star in the upcoming Christmas comedy Dear Santa alongside Jack Black and Keegan-Michael Key. It's unclear who Post Malone will be playing in Dear Santa, but the movie's premise will undoubtedly catch attention, considering it follows a young kid who accidentally writes a letter to Satan (Black) instead of Santa ahead of the Christmas holiday. The movie also reunites Black with the Farrelly Brothers, who collaborated together on 2001's Shallow Hal. Dear Santa will be another chance for Post Malone to showcase his comedic chops while also trying his hand at a Christmas movie for the first time in his acting career."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dear Santa to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: both keep votes appear to have missed the films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines part of NFILM. Is the production itself notable? I don't see any evidence that there is, which would make this an improper AfC acceptance and lead to redraftification until we have a release date. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? I don't think Cunard nor myself have missed that part, no. Cunard even quoted it VERBATIM in his !vote. Rather, maybe you missed the part in our !votes when we found it is notable, explained why and/or the evidence presented by Cunard above, present in the page or existing online Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard quoted it verbatim, yes, but his sources don't address it at all? All of these quotes he's pulled are basically "this movie is coming up! it's started shooting! here are some guys who are in it!" That's not the production of the movie being notable. That's simply people saying that the movie is currently being produced. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources discuss the film's production ("Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy"), its plot ("The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead."), its director and producers ("Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer."), who wrote the script ("The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt"), and background about the script ("The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen"). There is enough coverage about the film's background to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard, saying "Jack Black is in a place to shoot a film" is not discussing the film's production. For one, it's not discussing, in any sense of the word; it doesn't tell us anything about the film's production other than that it's happening. The "production is notable" part of WP:NFILM allows us to have articles on films that are not out and are not likely to come out, but are nonetheless notable. Like The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, which spent decades in development hell before finally coming out in 2018. The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film) is another example - you can see on that article that almost all of the content we have is about the production of the film. These are examples of films where the production is notable, which is completely different from "the movie was mentioned in the press while it was in production". -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of one that is still unreleased, as another example: Coyote vs. Acme. -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might have enoough to pass GNG, but it's simply a news story at this point. Might never get released. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC

Draft until it's a bit further in the production cycle. TO9SOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The production itself meets WP:GNG. See above sources by Cunard. C F A 💬 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The film has notable individuals attached, including Jack Black and the Farrelly Brothers, and is backed by Paramount Pictures. However, its current state lacks comprehensive secondary sources that offer in-depth coverage. Improving the article with more references from reliable sources can bolster its credibility and notability. Yakov-kobi (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like it was taken straight from ChatGPT. Did you write this comment yourself? C F A 💬 19:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see several Keep and one Draftify !votes. Draftifying the article does not seem like a good option to me, as the nominator's rationale is based on TOOSOON. The article would essentially just sit in draftspace until a release date is announced. The content of the article would not see a great difference, and I do not see why this wait cannot be done within the mainspace. The subject film commenced filming last year, satisfying NFF. Some of the Keep !votes are based on GNG, but the coverage is a bit weak imv, only covering the basic production details. However, I agree that the notable cast and crew should be sufficient to meet NFO. So I believe the film has enough notability to warrant an independent article, and it is never too late to file for an AFD if the film ends up being scrapped. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players with no prejudice to recreation as an article if further sources develop in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003)

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

Subject person played only 1 List-A and 2 First class match. Does WP:GNG surpasses WP:NCRICK? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990: - can I just point out NSPORT states that "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline...) - so all NSPORT is saying that people who meet those criteria are considered notable, but not meeting those criteria doesn't automatically make them non-notable. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear on the cricket delsort - tryingto add that again first Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At worst this is an obvious redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players where his name needs to be added. A note should also be added, as has been done for others. Beyond that I have no particular view here - there are some sources, but not so many. I suspect he is likely to be covered in others as well fwiw Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. He does not meet GNG - this is the one qualifying source. Gloscricket is obviously not independent coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the delsort issues, more eyes won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but he may be notable in the future, i.e. WP:NOTNOW. SWinxy (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SWinxy, in this case, wouldn't a redirect be more appropriate? That way, if he becomes notable in the future, someone won't have to start the article from scratch. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline decision but given the rhythms and vagaries of the English county cricket season we are approaching the part where younger players are used to a greater extent, precisely the time this page will be useful to people who follow the game to refer to. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. References are currently insufficient for GNG. Frank Anchor 18:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes WP:NCRIC as a cricketer who has played at the highest domestic level. I would add [10] and maybe [11] to the references. Tau Corvi (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD was initiated after an AFC discussion. I don't see any rationale AfD discussion here. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you please clarify what you mean here, or adjust the link to point to a discussion? Star Mississippi 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link corrected now. Sorry for the confusing link. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to QI#Other media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QI News

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

Unsourced since 2007. Literary found nothing that passes WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Organizations, Internet, and United Kingdom. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single source (let alone a reliable one) mentioning this subject, so it definitely fails WP:GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Variety Magazine mentioned it being in development once, in-passing [12]; that isn't substantial coverage. I doubt there is substantial coverage. Unsure about a redirect to QI; ComedyBox is a redlink. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to QI#Other_media -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this one is really strange. NO WP:THREE meeting WP:SIGCOV, still users are not interested. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searched for reliable sources with SIGCOV, but can’t find single. The subject fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 03:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sungai Kut Muara

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

I couldn't find sources to add showing it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: WP:NPLACE and WP:GNG apply. Draftification will allow more time to gather and check more sources. These sources may emerge and support the article, ensuring it meets the platform's standards before it reenters the main space.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to go with delete as the place does not appear in A Sarawak Gazetteer and seems to be essentially the same place as Kut. Also, the author hasn't been active in a year, so draftifying isn't likely to ever produce a viable article. Mangoe (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paramount Pictures films (1970–1979)

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

I couldn't find sources to add to show it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously a split of Lists of Paramount Pictures films. No particular issue with those lists. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, echoing Mushy Yank. Unclear why you are nominating this one in particular of the decade lists. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many sources on the history and films of the Paramount Studio, see Mountain of Dreams: The Golden Years of Paramount Pictures, The Paramount Story, Engulfed: The Death of Paramount Pictures and the Birth of Corporate Hollywood, and more. The current state of sourcing in the article is not relevant for notability; that can be fixed by editing. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-sourced article and better covered by Category:Paramount Pictures films and 'films by year' and films by year' genre cats. Nomination is pretty clear to build consensus for future deletions of 'list of studio's film by decade' articles, which are all covered and duplicated by each "(year) in (nation) film" articles that have much better sourcing and don't have to deal with 'studio stan' editors. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article and in view of the reliable book sources identified by Toughpigs in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list article. All information can be found in the articles linked to. If you want to copy the references over for some reason you can, but its not needed for lists. Dream Focus 13:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another "Candidate for deletion" that is too helpful to be one. That Article Editing Guy (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jukot

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

I couldn't find sources to add to confirm this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have census data so may be considered legally recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep village of 3,000 people passes WP:GEOLAND and it clearly comes up as a village in scholarly articles and in searches. SportingFlyer T·C 09:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to be a former local government area, a VDC, and so meets WP:GEOLAND, but I couldn't find the sources alluded to by the users above that would verify it. The best I could find were [13] [14] and [15] which are, IMO, barely enough for WP:V, there are some additional mentions in The Himalayan Times but no in depth coverage that I could see. Should be tagged for better sourcing at a minimum. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it would be helpful if the census data could be added (the Nepal 2021 census results on the official website seem to have been consolidated at district level) but there is more than enough press sourcing to meet GEOLAND. Ingratis (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Unit

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

Fails company notability, all primary sourced or an interview. IgelRM (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. IgelRM (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Their name doesn't make it easy to look for sources, but I can't find significant coverage of note. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Look, I loved Hydro Thunder Hurricane, and I'm surprised how there's little-to-no coverage on its developer. All I found were primary sources, and I searched archive.org too, couldn't find anything. MK at your service. 15:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the current article and WP:BEFORE searches, I don't see how this can pass WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Columbia Pictures films (1990–1999)

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

I couldn't find sources to add to show it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is a helpful reference and serves a navigational purpose. The list's notability is only a minor concern. Lists of films by major studios, such as Columbia Pictures, document cultural history and provide insight into cinematic trends of a specific era. These lists do not need additional sources to meet the notability guidelines. They are notable because they include famous films, and the studio is famous.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes. Obviously a split of Lists of Columbia Pictures films. No particular issue with those lists.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's unclear why these lists are getting nominated, or why the OP keeps nominating more without waiting for consensus. Obviously Columbia Pictures and its films are notable, see Columbia Pictures: A Century of Hollywood Motion Picture Magic and Columbia Pictures: Portrait of a Studio. The current state of sourcing in the article is not relevant for notability; that can be fixed by editing. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-sourced article and better covered by Category:Columbia Pictures films and 'films by year' and films by year' genre cats. Nomination is pretty clear to build consensus for future deletions of 'list of studio's film by decade' articles, which are all covered and duplicated by each "(year) in (nation) film" articles that have much better sourcing and don't have to deal with 'studio stan' editors. Any article within reason can be nominated for deletion at any time. Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, nominating just one page in what's clearly a set is bad form, and if they want future deletions to succeed, maybe they should get one to work before nominating several at once. This is organized by release date and is far more useful than massive alphabetical categories. I don't think 'studio stan' editors are an issue with straightforward list like this. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list article. All information can be found in the articles linked to. If you want to copy the references over for some reason you can, but its not needed for list. Dream Focus 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another unnecessary "Candidate for Deletion" for a major studio. That Article Editing Guy (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. After discarding the SPA/canvassed/sock votes, we're left with a unanimous agreement to delete. Owen× ☎ 20:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NIILM University

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

This fails WP:NORG. A WP:BEFORE revealed no useful potential references. The current references are one of: a) By NIILM, b) Announcements by NIILM, c) listings showing it exists. Private Universities do not get a free ride. WP:GNG failure, and WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It may be that the NIILM Education Trust is notable. If so that article needs to be written and NIILM University should then be covered in that article. I doubt that outcome is within the scope of an AfD discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find reliable sources covering this org in depth. A few brief mentions, essentially WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and little else. The WP:RS cited in opposing !votes are insufficient; hardly meeting the standards of WP:SIGCOV. So, no significant coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Not worth keeping. GhostOfNoMeme 20:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content/NOTFORUM

}}

Why raise this tag? Naduz (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.surjewala.in/pages/NIILM-University Naduz (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of reference Naduz (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.punjabnewsexpress.com/campus-buzz/news/a-special-seminar-on-legal-literacy-mission-held-at-niilm-university-kaithal-239351 Naduz (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_institutions_of_higher_education_in_Haryana Naduz (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naduz The three supposed references you have given are as stated in my nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haryana State Higher Education Council also referred

https://hshec.org/welcome/university_details/84 Naduz (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im one of the student of this university and since 2011 the university starts Naduz (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naduz I hope you enjoy studying there and have a successful future career. The reference you quote is as stated in my nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

So what to do ? Naduz (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What more do I have to share? Naduz (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are reliable? Naduz (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a university near where I live. Wiki-CBO (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a private university recognized by the Directorate of Higher Education Haryana Government.

The university is listed on of the Directorate of Education Board, Government of Haryana

https://www.highereduhry.ac.in/forms/WebPages/Universities#Pvt Wiki-CBO (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-CBO Please don't just suggest things that fail. The reference you quote is as stated un my nomination. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what should I share? Wiki-CBO (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-CBO Nothing. But you may seek to improve the article. WP:HEY may interest you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest me what will i improve the article? Wiki-CBO (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-CBO With respect, the nomination is clear. Editing the article to remove those concerns is likely to sway the discussion in its favour. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed social media links from article Wiki-CBO (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all my contribution of the university Wiki-CBO (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very informative article is there in Kaithal and a large number of alumnus have studied here. 2409:40F3:1D:6253:50D7:89FF:FE71:7BF6 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC) — 2409:40F3:1D:6253:50D7:89FF:FE71:7BF6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor and unreliable primary sources from the university website. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack inline citations, no WP:RS. But, articles like these can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if they match up WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

Got WP:RS

Voter Aawareness Program held at NIILM University.

https://www.bhaskar.com/local/haryana/kaithal/news/voter-awareness-program-held-at-niilm-university-132025861.html Naduz (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Showing Results in

University Grants Commission (India)

https://www.ugc.gov.in/universitydetails/Private_university_other?id=613

•Khelo India University Games 2023 medals tally: Full list of winners, NIILM University is listed 111.

https://olympics.com/en/news/khelo-india-university-games-2022-medals-tally-kiug-winners-list

•Going by the Haryana Private Universities Act 2006, an application containing the proposal and the project report with proof of land to establish a university in private sector has to be made by the sponsoring body to the government, along with nonrefundable fee of Rs 10 lakh. An application to set up a private university at Palwal in Faridabad was received on June 16, 2009, from NIILM Education Trust, Faridabad, along with the fee, but the Trust changed the location from Palwal to Kaithal during the presentation of the case on January 4, 2010.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/51-teachers-in-4-haryana-pvt-varsities-were-grads-or-less/story-pZ0ZxaU7UXozOHe5jkc0qL.html :Naduz (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Management of NIILM University booked for submitting ‘bogus’ papers to get scholarship.

https://indianexpress.com/article/education/management-of-niilm-university-booked-for-submitting-bogus-papers-to-get-scholarship-5330156/ Wikibuddys (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)— Wikibuddys (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete no evidence of notability of any kind, and a search finds nothing better. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectively,

Found from Google Scholar

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=niilm+university&oq=NIILM+Univ#d=gs_qabs&t=1721495042243&u=%23p%3DVdkMeKmVKWUJ Naduz (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources, but need to improve the article.
Wiki-CBO (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had 11 years to improve, this is hardly a hasty AfD of a new article. The nominator carried out a BEFORE search, as did I, and no better sources could be found. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content/NOTFORUM

- Someone removes all previously reliable sources Wikibuddys (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail the exam so delete this 2409:40F3:C:C22:584A:99FF:FE1A:D6D9 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — 2409:40F3:C:C22:584A:99FF:FE1A:D6D9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. IP editor warned for vandalism to the article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have performed a brief source analysis:

Source 1: https://www.niilmuniversity.ac.in/page/chancellors-message Primary source.

Source 2: https://www.niilmuniversity.ac.in/page/vice-chancellors-message Primary source

Source 3: https://hshec.org/welcome/university_details/84 listing that shows it exists. No significant coverage

Source 4: https://www.ugc.gov.in/oldpdf/Private%20University/Private%20University%20Consolidated%20List%20Private%20Universities%20as%20on%2019.09.2017.pdf List of private universities. No significant coverage

Source 5: https://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/51-teachers-in-4-haryana-pvt-varsities-were-grads-or-less/story-pZ0ZxaU7UXozOHe5jkc0qL.html significant coverage, but not of the fact cited. RS

Source 6: https://www.punjabnewsexpress.com/campus-buzz/news/a-special-seminar-on-legal-literacy-mission-held-at-niilm-university-kaithal-239351 A report 0f 4 paragraphs for a seminar organised by a department. Does not support the fact cited

Source 7: https://niilmuniversity.ac.in/page/about-us Primary sourced

Source 8: https://www.niilmuniversity.ac.in/blog/22/is-niilm-university-ugc-approved-or-not#:~:text=Yes%2C%20NIILM%20University%20holds%20approvals,and%20recognition%20of%20its%20degrees Primary source

Source 9: https://www.iesonline.co.in/niilm-university-kaithal/courses List of courses. Not significant coverage

None of these sources verify any notability. A few verify simple facts. Two purport to cite what they do not 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Army Public School, Jodhpur

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

This is a relatively small secondary school with, as far as I can find, no obvious claim to notability. Others may be able to provide evidence of notability (and create links from other pages to deorphan this page). Newhaven lad (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, Schools, and Rajasthan. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Didn't find any WP:SIGCOV. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Scholars (band)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Punknews staff review of their only album. AllMusic has a rating for this album, but no review. toweli (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant. Daniel (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion of Radhika Merchant

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP:NOTNEWS Youknow? (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Youknow? (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Celebrity gossip coverage isn't what we're looking for notability-wise. For this to be kept, you need an extensive amount of sourcing to get it over the hump; this is too brief Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant. As mostly about the event's clothing. Gotitbro (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant: Expansion of that can save it from deletion. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant: Per nom. Not enough SIGCOV for standalone article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Boldrin

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Economics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a PR item, but it suggests notability as a professorship at a major university [16], not sure if it passes PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Missouri and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the named professorship passes WP:NPROF C5. Moreover, the citation record [17] looks like an easy pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a high citation field. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy pass of WP:Prof. Nom should study policy before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep. Already noted, named professor at top research school is a speedy keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF, including also WP:PROF#C8, as editor-in-chief of Research in Economics. Nsk92 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets several criteria of WP:NPROF; the named professorship at WashU suffices by itself, as does the editorship. Qflib (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that there's a list of Universal studios films for every decade they've being in existence for, this list is well sourced and imo, is notable BFC Aspie (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes. Obviously a split of Lists of Universal Pictures films. No particular issue with those lists.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many sources on the history and films of Universal Pictures, see City of Dreams: The Making and Remaking of Universal Pictures, Universal Pictures: A Panoramic History in Words, Pictures, and Filmographies, The Cochrane Brothers And the Making of Universal Pictures, The Universal Story, and more. The current state of sourcing in the article is not relevant for notability; that can be fixed by editing. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-sourced article and better covered by Category:Universal Pictures films and 'films by year' and films by year' genre cats. Nomination is pretty clear to build consensus for future deletions of 'list of studio's film by decade' articles, which are all covered and duplicated by each "(year) in (nation) film" articles that have much better sourcing and don't have to deal with 'studio stan' editors. Any article within reason can be nominated for deletion at any time. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, nominating just one page in what's clearly a set is bad form, and if they want future deletions to succeed, maybe they should get one to work before nominating several at once. This is organized by release date and is far more useful than massive alphabetical categories. I don't think 'studio stan' editors are an issue with straightforward list like this. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid split from main article. Are references really needed for a blue-linked list? If so there is the book "The Universal Story" by Clive Hirschorn which includes yearly summaries of the studio's output and secondary reviews of the films that includes this time period, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list article. All information can be found in the articles linked to. If you want to copy the references over for some reason you can, but its not needed for list. Dream Focus 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles of this kind are a helpful resource for film historians. What good is there in removing them? This is the most ridiculous entry in the "Candidates for Deletion" roster since all those home video articles got removed. That Article Editing Guy (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayati Devi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Women, India, and West Bengal. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator that this is part of a walled garden, and this family member is not notable on her own. WP:NOTINHERITED. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A rename or rescope are editorial decisions that don't require a relist. Star Mississippi 18:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Generation Z slang

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. AviationFreak💬 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bougie, brainrot and AF are terms I've heard used and use, I'm nowhere near GenZ. This suggests notability... Seem well-sourced, not a slam dunk, but it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of words that I've heard, including many outside of the "Standard English" dictionary, that don't have an entry anywhere on Wikipedia (nor do I think they should). Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be in the business of cataloging words outside of legitimate glossaries that aid in a reader understanding articles on a particular topic. AviationFreak💬 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Zoomer slang has received particular coverage from prominent/WP:RS sources - Insider ([18] [19]), LA Times ([20] [21], WaPo ([22] [23]), NYP ([24]), Politico ([25]), USA Today ([26]), Newsweek ([27]) - with the related topic of Gen Alpha slang receiving coverage from the NYT ([28]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightoftheswords281 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, the article has some WP:OR issues and could use some work, but this topic (Gen Z slangs) has received a lot of coverage from reliable sources. (The article's also receiving ~5860 page views daily [29].) Some1 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to having an article just on "Generation Z Slang", but this list format is not what that article should look like. A well-sourced prose article (using some of the quality sources in the current article) would be fine, but the article at present is exactly the kind of thing that WP:NOTDICTIONARY is aimed against. Reliable sources absolutely do cover this topic, and the topic as a whole is notable, but a poorly-sourced exhaustive list with little actual explanatory prose should not be the way we cover the topic. AviationFreak💬 02:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So be bold and fix it, including moving the article to Generation Z slang if necessary. But requesting the deletion of the entire article because you disagree with the format and structure, even though you agree that Reliable sources absolutely do cover this topic, and the topic as a whole is notable, is not the way to go. Some1 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think editing a page at that scale (i.e., an entire rewrite and page move) is beyond what WP:BOLD is getting at. I do not believe a "List of Generation Z Slang" as an article has a place on Wikipedia, so I've requested its deletion. A prose article on the overall topic of Generation Z slang seems reasonable, but I believe that's an entirely separate article. Surely a better alternative to a BOLD edit of that scale would be a discussion like the one we're having now, given the possibility of the WP:BRD cycle undoing a time-consuming page rewrite. AviationFreak💬 03:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to note that List of ethnic slurs has a list format similar to List of Generation Z slang. Some1 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the clearly-defined inclusion criteria on the talk page, quality sourcing, and lack of OR. Additionally, that article has long been a part of Wikipedia, and when it went through a number of deletion discussions, the main focus was on the offensiveness of the content, not its format or status in functioning as a dictionary. Other stuff exists. AviationFreak💬 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others and maybe Move to List of 21st century youth slang or something similar. - Sebbog13 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the subject's notability. Could also Compromise, if y'all want, by removing the non linked words and keeping the notable ones to have a more specific inclusion criteria. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria can be discussed on the article's talk page. This AfD isn't the place for that. Some1 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the topic does take at least some precedence since Aviation did say that the problem was that the list mostly includes "indiscriminate" words sourced to "barebones Dictionary.com entries." The newly proposed inclusion criteria would fix this concern. Aviation even noted the list of ethnic slurs' clear inclusion criteria when you brought it up. TheWikiToby (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can propose your idea on the article's talk page Talk:List of Generation Z slang. Some1 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, however very heavily rework in order to make the page more formal and encyclopedic. A clear case of the unprofessional manner of the page are the examples. The example for "brainrot" is "Bro, the skibidi toilet gyatt ohio sigma kai cenat rizzler memes are literal brainrot..." which is not very professional nor encyclopedic. Jon.yb093 (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure that all of the slang has fallen into obscurity, but the inclusion criteria concerns me. Some slang, like "fanum tax," is mostly used by Gen Alpha. "Aura" was popularized in 2024; is that even Gen Z? A portion of the content has wording comparable to what one would find from Urban Dictionary. Semi-protection has helped, but "skibidi ohio sigma gyatt fanumtax rizzler"-esque brainrot persists on the page. Rusty 🐈 21:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland in the 2009 Air New Zealand Cup

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

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

This article consists only of a squad list

This article has not been updated since 2009

This article is completely unreferenced

This article is completely unreferenced

This article is completely unreferenced

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability and all are unreferenced. If any of these do meet notability they may as well be recreated due to lack of anything to work with currently. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW the Wellington one is referenced. Aircorn (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete the North Otago one as that is a lower tier competition and as far as I can tell the only one of its type. Not fussed too much either way on whether the rest are kept or not, but am not sure how relevant the "not updated" argument is. The articles are about a competition that occurred 15 years ago, so there is unlikely to be any new information to add in the following years. Quality wise the Wellington one seems the most developed so maybe a weak keep that one and weak delete the others. Aircorn (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no sustained coverage of them after the fact then they are not notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not how notability works. Aircorn (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSUSTAINED, also articles are meant to be based primarily on secondary sources. How can something be notable for our standards if it received no secondary coverage? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I say these articles haven't been updated in 15 years, I mean they haven't been updated since the middle of that season. Those articles are incomplete. In one case, there isn't even any coverage of the season itself, just the pre-season games. But regardless, even if the details of all the matches played in each of these seasons was added, I don't see any reason to keep them due to a lack of any demonstration of notability. It looks like someone had a passion project and then got bored. I'll note that the original authors of all of these articles are no longer active on Wikipedia, and haven't been in over a decade. – Pee Jay 09:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A check for references for this set of articles didn't come up with the reliable secondary coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG. Please ping me if better sourcing is found. Let'srun (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Views to retain the page carry more weight than those to delete or redirect, not to mention being more numerous. Owen× ☎ 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoze Houndz

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Six sources, same as last AfD. Not a slam dunk, but they at least confirm GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment....I concur with Donaldd23 and share his concern....six footnotes, yes, some from reliable media...but none of them seems to be focusing on the series except one (and only to mention it broadcast in Spain, which is significant but is it enough?)! One (Ottawa Citizen) is even an article from ...September 1998 (when the series premiered in October 1999....). (The article in The Record Kitchener is also dated from one month before 1st broadcast....) The Gulf News article just mentions the name of the series....And this cruel lack of content clearly shows in the article itself. And if the page cannot be expanded, a redirect is a better outcome....since when is the number of footnotes considered enough?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sitaare Zameen Par (film)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Adnan (ᵀᵃˡᵏ) 14:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The AFD request is opened with bad faith intent. You can see this deletion request and ANI discussion. Thanks for your consideration C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 14:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: because filming is wrapped and cast notable; or draftify if coverage regarding production is judged insufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While more coverage on the production could be added, the article already meets the basic criteria for inclusion. I believe it should be kept to allow further development and improvement as more information becomes available. ManaliJain (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NFF as filming is complete. And a film starring Aamir Khan is unnotable? What a sick joke. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As it satisfy WP:NFILM. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 08:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Harburger TB season

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

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

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

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

MintyFresh201: No other teams playing on the same level has had season articles written about them, ever. It would have to be an overwhelming depth of coverage, and not routine coverage from local news outlets. Geschichte (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean by that? MintyFresh201 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have this week to improve the article. Giant Snowman 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I appreciate your consideration. MintyFresh201 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean adding more sources to establish notability, correct? MintyFresh201 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too low down in the leagues and nothing of note happened in the season from that what it appears. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what would be an appropriate level in a football league system to write individual articles on a season for a club? MintyFresh201 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment judging from a quick look, the third tier of Germany or above would be an appropriate level, but a key consideration is the availability of reliable independent sources covering the subject in depth. C 679 17:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cloudz679 Okay, thank you for clarifying. MintyFresh201 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. No notability expected for an amateur team season. Svartner (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. C 679 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classic World Racing

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

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

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

Hi

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

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

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

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

Delete Could not find any new sources except for financial statements/company stuff which is given in by the company itself, so not an innuendo of WP:SIGCOV Vorann Gencov (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson Brothers

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Comment While I appreciate the added sources, I do not believe that, taken together, they provide sufficient basis for a standalone article. The only source that fleshes out the Hansons, and provides sufficient information for a standalone article, is vintagemnhockey.com, but that can hardly be considered a reliable source per WP:SPS. What we do have is sufficient information for a separate section in Slap Shot and therefore I think Merge is the correct outcome here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Figureofnine (talk · contribs) - Would you kindly explain how you came to the conclusion that vintagemnhockey.com is a self-published source? To me, it looks like a website about the history of hockey in Minnesota. Would you also please elaborate what you think is lacking from these other sources:
I don't doubt your sincerity, however you said you did a "thorough check" between the 11th and 14th of July and didn't find even a single source. Given that you failed to pick up such mainstream sources as the New York Times, The Hockey News, and the National Hockey League, it seems that your research was not thorough at all. You dismiss the sources that have been presented, and that's fine. But as the nominator and only proponent so far, it's on you to make the case which you have not done, in my opinion. On the other hand, you have convinced me to go and watch the movie again, so high-fives all around! Buffalkill (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a great film, just on TCM, which is how I latched on to this subject. What I see in these articles is enough for a nice perma-stub if we don't use vintagehockey, which has the appearance of yet another self-published fan website. I was hoping to see stuff in regional newspapers but turned up blank. I would have been happy to add some good profiles and articles as sources if I had found them. I used the same database to flesh out North American Hockey League (1973–1977), which is another 1970s artifact that needed more sourcing. Now, it wouldn't end the world having yet another fancruft article sourced to marginal or non-RS sources, but I think a section in Slap Shot makes more sense. And incidentally if the gods of Wikipedia were to determine that vintagehocky is an acceptable source, I would want to use it for the Hockey League article, which could use more sourcing still. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article from the New York Times is a pretty good source, since it talks about the Hanson Brother characters in a real-world context, rather than simply within the plot of the films. As most of the sources discussing the characters are also discussing the film, though, it could be a WP:NOPAGE situation where it would make more sense to cover them together in one article. Rorshacma (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The further sources below along with the NYT article I posted above show that there is sufficient coverage on the trio outside of their role in the movie that a Split would be justified in this case. The current article definitely needs improvement (integrating these new sources into the article, replacing the bullet points for actual prose text, etc.) but there is no longer a case for Deletion here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to withdraw the nom if there are sufficient sources. I didn't find a single one in my search on Newspapers.com, and I'm not sure what's been presented meets GNG. While it wasn't my intent to nominate this article for deletion to fix it, the fact remains that it has been sitting there in a terrible state, fancruft, for years and has been tagged for sourcing since 2012, with a further tag in February 2023. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:BEFORE, there are many reliable sources available to improvement. The article needs work, but that is not grounds for deletion as per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on the article talk page, I only nominated this for deletion after I was able to perform a thorough check using a suitable database, Newspapers.com. As you can see from the article, in the many years since this article was created, reliable sources were not provided even after it was first nominated for deletion. Even the external link that sat at the bottom of this article for many years, described as the Hansons' "official website," did nothing more than pitch Hanson merchandise. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject passes WP:GNG and I can help with addressing the article's shortcomings. WP:SIGCOV & WP:SUSTAINED includes the above-mentioned NY Times piece, write-ups on NHL.com from 2017 and 2023, a 2006 cover story and a 2023 follow-up in The Hockey News, this article from 2020, and this article from 2021. Moreover, there will undoubtedly be endless reems and reels of coverage related to the actors' many public appearances over the years. The followign exerpt is from the 2010 NY Times article cited by Rorshacma above: "They used to make around 90 appearances a year and were sponsored by Budweiser. For the last several years, they have made about 20 to 30, Hanson said. They receive 300 to 400 requests, including some from Europe, he said." Buffalkill (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buffalkill and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage demonstrated through article improvements. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see evidence of WP:NOTABILITY for these characters. It seems on the edge of whether it's enough for a stand-alone article, and I support the emerging consensus that this article can be improved, without deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Oswalds Retail Park

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree fails WP:GNG, all references WP:ROTM. Orange sticker (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Nothing remarkable about this shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + add more sources Despite me being the author of the article, I believe the area is notable enough to have an article. Unlike a previous page i made earlier about a school in Kingsholm, It is gaining more notability from sources after the opening of the Popeyes there. Gloucestershire Live has reported alot on it as well. Snipertron12 Talk 07:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as bog-standard as a shopping centre as you can possibly get, and the opening of a chicken restaurant is just an unnotable tenant switch. Nate • (chatter) 23:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Asbury

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash

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

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

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

Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." I've only been able to find news coverage dating from when the accident happened. Coverage of the accident only lasted 1-3 days. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References are in the articles and sources are out there. My question was for the references. The continued coverage requirement is important, however, it takes time until media get back to an event. This one happened in 2024. gidonb (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accident, pretty much all references are primary without any analysis of the event.

Per WP:NTEMP: "_{While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.}" Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Nearly six months after the event, nobody's much interested, and there's no discernable reason why they should be. Also, military crashes have a higher bar to cross for notability than civilian ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The most recent news i could find were from 1 day after the accident.

Scs52 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Post-closing note: - I have struck the part of the close referring to a speedy keep - that was an error on my part. It is not a speedy keep, but a WP:SNOW close and keep per WP:SK#NOT. Mea culpa —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Matthew Crooks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we will naturally get more and more

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A consensus to delete is not going to emerge here. A merger discussion does not require a relist Star Mississippi 16:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Houmen railway station

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

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

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

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

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

Keep without prejudice to a merge discussion for all the articles about stations on the relevant line per Jumpytoo. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xiamen–Shenzhen railway. (Standard ATD for rail stations, despite target not having a list of stations; this is a beginning.) Djflem (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Mahmutaj

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

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

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

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

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ervis Koçi (footballer, born 1998)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, played some football games on a tier that was not fully professional, and no relevant sources. To the closer: remember to move Ervis Koçi (footballer, born 1984) to the non-disambiguated title afterwards. Geschichte (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Poorly-formatted article without significant coverage and major updates :( I also agree with Geschichte for the article rename once this nomination has been closed. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not even a claim of notability. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus to keep after latest revisions denoting GNG. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Šárka Sudová

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is definitely notable enough. Article expanded. FromCzech (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Updated article after edits from FromCzech passes the notability guideline. C 679 13:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There still isn't enough WP:RS for GNG: apart from the iDNES ref, the article as of now relies on database references and texts written by herself (author profile pages). I was unable to find better. (N.B.: I do not speak Czech and my assessment of sources is based on machine translation of them, which means it may be very flawed). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added several other references. FromCzech (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the expansion by FromCzech. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granuel Lika

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV and doesn't meet notability guidelines. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egli Trimi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, not even a credible claim to notability at this point. Geschichte (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Lack of major edits with only database sources listed, this article is clearly not notable. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Labáthová

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few things I located: [30] [31] [32]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source #1 mentions Labáthová in the first five paragraphs, Source #2 does not address her in-depth, and Source #3 mentions her in one paragraph repeated from the title. None of these provide significant coverage that is required for notability; Labáthová still needs to meet SIGCOV and GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete could not find anything that would help the subject to pass WP:GNG, and I don’t think the links given by @BeanieFan11 help a lot. Could not locate anything that would help the subject to meet WP:SIGCOV. All in all, doesn’t fit WP:SPORTCRIT Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalentEgg

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

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

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

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

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most of the sourcing focuses on interviewing the founder and contains no "Independent Content" beyond what has been provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. After discarding the SPA/canvassed/sock votes, we're left without consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep The book should be retained due to its significant educational impact and recognition. The book has been independently reviewed and praised for its valuable insights on success and the importance of having a sense of purpose, as detailed in Eagle. Additionally, it has been recognized in Ugandan media, with Bukedde highlighting its influence. Moreover, the book won the "Business Book of the Year" award, as reported by Newslex Point. This recognition and its adoption by the National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC) for secondary school curriculum demonstrate its educational value and relevance, satisfying the requirements of WP:NBOOK. -- Macholi (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Thanks to the editors who showed up after two relistings of this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bus (group)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify. Although there is coverage, there are not many WP:RS, what I could find was a) social networks b) fandom c) a website called kprofiles that looks user-generated (though my results may be not the best due to language settings). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of available WP:RS establishing notability. GhostOfNoMeme 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now, and potentially merge to Tada Entertainment once that article is created. There is RS coverage, but not much that's in-depth about the group itself. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep and editors can have a Move discussion on the article talk page (or be bold). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional British and Irish universities

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources included in the article that cover the topic of fictional British/Irish universities as a group or set - the closest this article has are a series of joke articles from the same website. The only entry here that actually has its own article is the Unseen University, which isn't actually even in Britain or Ireland. Fails WP:LISTN, appears to be peppered throughout with WP:OR, and probably runs afoul of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities and expand to cover the subject generally. BD2412 T 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities as suggested above by BD2412T and possibly implied by LaundryPizza03. A quick search shows a number of articles on fictional universities as a group, so that would appear to pass WP:LISTN. The main problem here is that it's a non-encyclopedic WP:CROSSCAT, but as that can be solved by removing the cross-category element that seems to be the obvious solution. Robminchin (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to List of fictional universities — per BD2412 and Robminchin. I believe fictional universities as a group enjoy sufficient coverage; a move makes sense. As it stands, the current article fails WP:LISTN. GhostOfNoMeme 16:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my preference to Move. This should be at List of fictional universities. I don't agree with merging to List of fictional schools — "school" in British English does not refer to universities, so WP:COMMONALITY applies. GhostOfNoMeme 09:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to List of fictional universities. COI: I created this list, inspired by a conversation at an Academic Archers conference where the University of Felpersham was mentioned and we wondered what other fictional (British) universities existed. I initially drafted it as "List of fictional English universities" but broadened it to UK and Ireland, because that's the area whose literature, film/tv and higher education I'm familiar with. I can see good reasons for broadening the scope to be international, but it will require some careful attention to scope and standards of list items. A column for "Country" will be needed. Entries for many non-UK&I institutions will need to be added, and the borderline of what is a university as opposed to a college will need to be defined, allowing for problems of ENGVAR. In the list at Lists of fictional locations, this list is shown as a subdivision of "List of schools", while in British English "schools" are what comes before Further Education or Higher Education (or in some cases are divisions of a university, or entities such as the London School of Economics!) The existing List of fictional schools includes some universities (and is almost entirely unsourced, except for the schools of magic).

I'm disappointed to see this list described as WP:OR, as every list item and statement is sourced. I would be sorry to see that level of care and sourcing diluted in the move to internationalise the list, but am also fearful that if it is simply moved it will be criticised as failing to represent the whole world, tagged as {{Globalise}}. Perhaps that is OK, as a nudge to editors to join in expanding its coverage. I wouldn't call it WP:INDISCRIMINATE either, as it has very clear inclusion criteria and aims for completeness. At present its title is quite clear about its scope, and it has aimed to be comprehensive within that (ie it includes every sourced fictional UK&Ireland university which has been discovered by me or other contributors, plus a couple of culturally-British extragalactic ones).

There are certainly other sources listing non-UK&I fictional universities: 21 US colleges here, 25 here (largely overlapping), 30 "fictional schools" here (mostly high schools, couple of elementary schools, but a few universities or colleges), a top ten here which includes both UK and US institutions, while this 2015 account of Borchester was to be the first of a week of "Great fictional universities" but I can't find the others. Those sources are all dominated by recent films and tv: the existing list is strong on literature, from Thomas Hardy onwards. Perhaps another column for "medium" (book/play/tv/radio/film) would be useful too.

There may well be lists of fictional universities in American (and other) novels. Some of the titles in Campus novel#Examples may yield list entries (eg I find that Pnin is set in Waindell College), and some of the sources at Campus novel#Bibliography may be fruitful. (Though the first one turns out only to be a book review, of the useful-sounding The American College Novel: an annotated bibliography). Though of course fictional universities are not confined to Campus Novels (Felpersham is from a radio series).

TLDR: To sum up: yes, by all means expand it to international coverage but with care so that it maintains its thorough sourcing and careful construction (eg sortkeys in column 1); a column for "country" and perhaps one for "medium" would be useful additions.

Sorry to be longwinded here, but I do, naturally, feel somewhat protective of this list as its creator and a major contributor. PamD 20:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fictional schools. No need for two lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of "school" to refer to a tertiary institution is an Americanism, so this violates WP:COMMONALITY. And that's a much poorer article in any case. Non-British Isles universities on that list should be moved to this article after renaming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Good point regarding WP:COMMONALITY. I agree with a move to List of fictional universities and a transfer of the universities from List of fictional schools. The latter article should make this separation clear. GhostOfNoMeme 11:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities and expand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to List of fictional universities~~ which I am pretty sure is a topic fullfilling WP:LISTN, and expand by other contries, as PamD has pointed to. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of fictional universities afterwards, to preserve what we have here as basis for an article with expanded scope which I expect fullfills WP:LISTN just fine. Daranios (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and then accommodate the changes made by PamD with generalized scope, I guess, would be fine for me as a way to go through with this. Whatever the technicalities, I believe there is a way to go to put the suggestions of the majority to preserve and adapt the content to a renamed list as suggested by a majority here into practice. That said, after another look and given the differences in educational systems, the split by country seems much less a synthesis than I originally thought, as most easily accessible English secondary sources seem to feature US-American and/or British universities. It will be interesting if some from other countries will be found in the end. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A closer can't close a discussion as a Move. If this is your choice, please make an argument to Keep and then a Move can be discussed after this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sort of taken as read! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If it's going to be expanded, it should happen in the near future. Otherwise, it's too over-specific to remain there, as I don't think that particular subset of fictional universities passes WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've drafted a possible new version of the main list, ready for international expansion, at User:PamD/new-unis. Two new columns, and no longer any need to explain the Britishness of the three extraterrestrial institutions. Any comments, from editors suggesting keep-and-move? PamD 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This keeps getting more interesting. Thanks for the draft, it looks good to me! It just needed an introduction, which I have tried to start, and some new phrasing of inclusion criterea. And if that's the way to go, one needed to solve the question how to get the histories together. Presumably drafty this list, and then replace the content by PamD's draft, which is based on the list here. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think draftifying would be a useful step. If the closer of this AfD decides to Keep the list, then the next step would be to move it to the suggested new title, alter the wording of the lead appropriately, and amend the main list. I think the move would be uncontroversial, and it could be done immediately. My draft new version of the main table is a suggestion: I would be happy to contribute to the internationalisation of the list by pasting the revised code over the existing table.

While I don't want to be guilty of WP:OWNing this article, I am the person most familiar with its existing content and structure (and will keep an eye on it in future to maintain the standards of sortability and sourcing). PamD 10:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, whatever works to get there. As above, it's all just technicalities, I believe all keep and move !votes want to have the same end results at this point. Daranios (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I have notified a relevant WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education#List of fictional British and Irish universities: I believe this is Appropriate notification rather than Canvassing. PamD 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus right now to Keep this article but an acknowledgement that it needs a lot of work. I hope interested editors can address any problems that still exist through editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in His Dark Materials

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got pinged as the article creator. It seems that a long time ago I merged a couple of articles because they were not individually notable. Perhaps some of the items here have enough 3rd party coverage to merit existence, but I'll stay out of discussion. --Tone 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to His Dark Materials#Setting. It might be able to be spun off into a Universe of His Dark Materials article, but currently it seems heavily loaded with plot and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I got pinged as a major contributor to the article, though truth to tell my role has been largely copyediting and 'pruning'. This list article summarises all the 'worlds' and distinct locations in the (massive) His Dark Materials two trilogies of books and a number of spin-offs. All the info is - or should be - in the coverage of each of those books, and is no more WP:OR or indiscriminate than a list of characters from a major book, TV or film series, of which we host many. WP in my opinion is highly inconsistent in its coverage of created works. Almost every plot summary of almost every film or book is, in reality, intrinsically WP:OR. Choosing what plot devices to record and how to record them, an editor makes creative judgements. Our justification to ourselves is that the "work itself is the source". According to strict interpretation of P&G, this article probably has no place on WP, but IMHO has value as collating info recorded elsewhere on the site.Pincrete (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article needs a lot of work, I believe there is significant coverage in secondary sources to allow just that, like this Lonely Planet article, this Radio Times article, two paragraphs in Routledge Handbook of the Tourist Experience, p. 83-84, the chapter "'Lyra's Odyssey' In Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials Trilogy" in Once and Future Antiquities in Science Fiction and Fantasy, two chapters in Serialization in Literature Across Media and Markets, pages in Space and Place in Children’s Literature, 1789 to the Present (mostly but not exclusively on Oxford), and others. Now the article's topic may not be the main topic in all those source, but that's specifically not required by WP:SIGCOV. But those sources do have a lot to say on the locations, as a group and individually, plot summary, commentary on the function of the locations in the story, commentary on their realization on film, inspirations, intertextuality, etc. No objection against a renaming into Universe of His Dark Materials, or rather Multiverse of His Dark Materials, but I don't find that neccessary either. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios' sources. No objection to rename if that's the consensus, and obviously a merger into #Setting is preferable to outright deletion if this is not retained as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Wimmin

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Teen Titans (TV series) characters. Two different Merge target articles were proposed but this one seems to make the most sense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teen Titans Go! characters

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teen Titans Go!. The article in its current form has too many entries that are unnecessary, the only inline references are to the show itself, and the external links don't discuss any characters other than the main ones. Merging the most important characters to the show page (with a note about character crossover) should be fine.
The Teen Titans Go! article says Sporting a different animation style, Teen Titans Go! serves as a comedic standalone spin-off with little to no continuity to the original Teen Titans series (although some references are included as comedic fan service) or any other media in the DC Comics franchise., so a merge to List of Teen Titans (TV series) characters would excessively disrupt that article. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a WP:GNG fail, but summarizing this at the main article is a fine WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Teen Titans Go! in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and the fact that the bios for the exclusive characters have to go somewhere on this website. The other list mentioned would not be able to be merged with this one anyway since both shows are in their own continuity like some of the shows in the franchises associated with SpongeBob SquarePants, The Fairly OddParents, and The Loud House to name some examples. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Teen Titans Go! § Characters. Otherwise, without reliable sources, we'd be turning into Fandom overnight. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Since this is a mythological subject, not a news story or a BLP, and many of the relevant sources are books which do not have online links, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and close this discussion as Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Elephant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to see here. Merge to Hindu cosmology and World Turtle#India. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prime ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos

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

Fails WP:GNG, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, just redirect this junk to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister and do the same with the rest of the mass-produced inauguration substubs. They do not need separate pages just because they happened, this can be covered perfectly well in the respective articles of the presidents. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister We don't need to give this its own separate article as the election was a clear sham and it was a pre-ordained result. Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister, nothing separately notable here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister per Reywas92 and others. Sal2100 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Real (TV channel)#Drama. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Hai Hum

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

Fails WP:GNG, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama: where it's listed, and add a source (https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2009/Feb/26/real-tv-channel-to-go-on-air-from-march-2-28746.html or a more detailed one, like https://nettv4u.com/about/hindi/tv-serials/hindi-hai-hum) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and no sources with indepth coverage. I would not even consider to redirect the page to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama because this page too fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP with no significant coverage that was up for only one year from 2009 to 2010. RangersRus (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Life and Religion of Mohammed

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

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

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

Delete. There are 5 articles mentioning the book in ProQuest, but only brief mentions. None feature the book as their primary topic. Astaire (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princesa Lea

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: Besides the above, there's also this which should be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is a consensus to Delete this article based on the quality of the sources, not any commercial "motivations" (whatever those might be, I have no idea). If you want there to be an article on this subject, collect better sources and work on an article in Draft space which you can submit to WP:AFC for review. That's the process here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Asset Management

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Imcdc Contact 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. 3 gnews hits says it all, lacking third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just use Google seach instead of Google News. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. - Altenmann >talk 04:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP and Reliable sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hedgefund journal, UCITS hedge Funds, Eurohedge and Hedgeweek are not reliable sources? Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ fails NCORP. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
can you specify exactly how and where it fails NCORP please? Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This company's founder is also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Ilinski. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Here are examples of independent sources

https://www.ipe.com/investment/asset-management-fees-whats-the-going-rate/10012128.article

https://www.ft.com/content/e6aff8b0-5480-11df-8bef-00144feab49a

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trends-in-economics-a-calculus-of-risk/ Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the deletion of the article on Fusion Asset Management for the following reasons:

Fusion Asset Management is a well-regarded company within the financial sector, with 20+ years track record particularly known for its innovative approaches to asset management and risk mitigation. The company's methodologies and strategies have been widely discussed and adopted within the industry.

Contrary to the claim of insufficient independent sources, Fusion Asset Management has been featured in several reputable financial publications. These include coverage in the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Hedge Fund Journal, and Hedgeweek. These sources provide independent verification of the company's activities, achievements, and contributions to the finance industry.

In addition to these, Fusion Asset Management’s methodologies and research have been cited in academic papers and industry reports, further establishing its impact and recognition beyond self-published content.

If there are particular sections of the article that do not comply with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards, they can be revised. Specific feedback on which sections need improvement would be greatly appreciated, allowing for targeted revisions rather than a blanket deletion.

Deleting the article would overlook the company’s impact and the opportunity to provide comprehensive and accurate information to the public. I urge for a reconsideration of the deletion proposal, focusing on improving the article rather than removing it.

Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this can be commercially motivated. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or update)

I oppose the deletion of the article on Fusion Asset Management for the following reasons:

Fusion Asset Management is a well-regarded company within the financial sector, with 20+ years track record particularly known for its innovative approaches to asset management and risk mitigation. The company's methodologies and strategies have been widely discussed and adopted within the industry.

Contrary to the claim of insufficient independent sources, Fusion Asset Management has been featured in several reputable financial publications. These include coverage in the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Hedge Fund Journal, and Hedgeweek. These sources provide independent verification of the company's activities, achievements, and contributions to the finance industry.

In addition to these, Fusion Asset Management’s methodologies and research have been cited in academic papers and industry reports, further establishing its impact and recognition beyond self-published content.

If there are particular sections of the article that do not comply with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards, they can be revised. Specific feedback on which sections need improvement would be greatly appreciated, allowing for targeted revisions rather than a blanket deletion.

Deleting the article would overlook the company’s impact and the opportunity to provide comprehensive and accurate information to the public. I urge for a reconsideration of the deletion proposal, focusing on improving the article rather than removing it.

Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this can be commercially motivated.

Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tarasrybak888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Tarasrybak888: Commercial motivations are not permitted on Wikipedia. The contributors at this deletion discussion are trying to remove a non notable corporate puff piece from an encyclopaedia. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarasrybak888: Please disclose your relation to the company Fusion Asset Management, per Wikipedia rules of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. - Altenmann >talk 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles existing for 10 years does not mean it is automatically notable and should be kept. Your long winded post sounds like a company employee. I nominated the founder and am not in UK or Russia or have any connection with the industry or competitors. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficiently notable company — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and New York. Imcdc Contact 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Zero evidence of notability. I speedied an article about the founder (or "founder"), Asuna Gilfoyle, in May. Gilfoyle was a character in Silicon Valley -- I think A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P. is a joke. JSFarman (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found A.P. Gilfoyle & Co., L.P.'s Securities and Exchange Commission registration: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/329643. I would disagree that it's a joke based on the registration. CacheOverride (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it clearly fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanvikaa

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

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

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

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

'Delete: As is, the article would be a quick draft or BLPPROD as there's now only an infobox. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Campbell

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Delete. Non-notable footballer, who doesn’t pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could only find some routine coverage in match reports for the Montserrat national team after he scored 2 goals in the team's first win for 17 years. [33] [34] Not enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. C 679 10:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 2022 Azadi March II. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haqeeqi Azadi Movement

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2022 Azadi March II It seems WP:BEFORE wasn't followed as there is already coverage of it such as this and this. However, it seems unnecessary for this topic to have its own standalone article. Therefore, the recommendation would be to merge the content and redirect it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge as per Saqib.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It seems that the majority of participants see these two companies as separate entities and there is opposition to a Merge of the two similarly named companies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Trains (open access operator)

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

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

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

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

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funnybros

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage is looking sparse. These two sources might count towards GNG, although they do look low-quality: [35] [36]. I am unable to consistently access guardian.ng. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how those sources you provided meets GNG neither low quality. Meanwhile, i have never heard the word “Low quality” while determining either an article meets GNG or not. If it passes it passes. If doesn’t pass, it doesn’t. You can visit the article page. Check the tag to understand what reliable, independent source it’s all about. The two source you provided failed to be independent because it doesn’t speak from a disinterest of the article subject. Gabriel (talk to me ) 04:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "low-quality" I meant that the tone is tabloid-style and the articles don't contain a lot of independent analysis. The sources use non-neutral language, but I don't see indications that they have a vested interest in the subject. If the articles were sponsored, for example, they would be completely non-independent, but there is no indication of that (unless there's something I'm missing about the sources). Per WP:IIS, "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea." Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

* Keep: Aside the facts that the article is poorly sourced in terms of headlines. The references are organically written based on the fact fans appreciate his work, this is a notable comedian in Nigeria. I think the article will be improved over time, I suggest an external link should be added to his article i.e (His official YouTube channel). Madeforall1 (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God. Please @Madeforall1 AFD discussion is not meant for all editors. Focus on improving yourself here on Wikipedia before jumping into AFD. U have been using the same tone on your talk page to vote keep here. What business does Wikipedia has with his YouTube page. What do you understand by notable on Wikipedia. Just because someone is famous and you know them by that you call them notable here. I will advise you stay off AFD & start practicing how to write a good article. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been advise by some admins to participate in AFD, and yes I know when an article is notable or not. I’ve seen cases where external links are added, those links can’t be used as references. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All your articles created since 2022 to 2024 are all deleted and all you could think of was AFD. If anyone could have advise you. Then you definitely have misunderstood them. My last reply to you on this AFD. So don’t bother responding rather take my advice and put that into practice. It’s definitely gonna help you here. Cheers. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice Sir. Madeforall1 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails WP:GNG. Too few reliable, independent sources. A few rather promotional articles on a small number of online news sites are insufficient to establish notability in my opinion. I can see further coverage on Legit.ng, but the articles seem to be very low-quality "entertainment" pieces (one of them being "Look, this YouTuber bought a flashy car!" — c'mon). The majority of the remaining references are very brief: low-effort pieces mostly focused on social media reactions. There seems to be little else available. Coverage is neither significant nor from particularly reliable sources, as best I can tell. WP:NBASIC. GhostOfNoMeme 16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point. Almost all the source are just talking about what he has acquired. House, Benz and instagram verification has nothing to do with Wikipedia article for creation. Talking about notable outside of Wikipedia to my best of knowledge as a Nigerian ‘he has never trended for anything’ just a popular skit maker I know as well being famous due to his style of video. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Articles like "How Female Fan Proposed To Me" and "Skit Maker Funnybros Trends As He Becomes a Mercedes Benz SUV Owner" seem poor references, even if the sources are generally reliable (also, I note the majority of stories about Funnybros on Legit.ng are from the same author; I can't help but wonder if they're paid articles or if there is some connection, but I have no evidence of that). Same goes for "Top 10 Skit Makers To Look Out For In 2023" which is literally just a low-effort listicle in which he's briefly mentioned. I don't think these entertainment fluff pieces are enough to show WP:SIGCOV. I can't find much else on Google beyond these types of articles — and I was mindful to search beyond the English-language sources — that, as Helpful Raccoon noted, are tabloid-style and hardly represent in-depth coverage of the man himself. If this level of referencing were all that is required, I could probably make a thousand Wikipedia articles about various YouTubers who, in reality, are not remotely notable. GhostOfNoMeme 12:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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