Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Purge server cache

Nanticoke City, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely insignificant formerly unincorporated residential subdivision that is now a part of Seaford, Delaware. I am unable to locate the article's cited sources anywhere to verify whether it fails WP:SIGCOV or falls under WP:ROUTINE, but based on Google or Newspapers.com yielding no relevant results and the only relevant newspaper coverage that I am able to find being passing mentions, I am almost certain that this place is not notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Delaware. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly was a real "village" – the Delaware General Assembly once appointed commissioners to survey the "village known as Nanticoke City, Seaford Hundred," to consider the construction of a public road there. Passing book mentions here and here. Newspapers.com has ~170 mentions of the community in Delaware papers, e.g. [1] [2]. It seems like it was considered separate from Seaford until it was "annexed" in 1910 ([3]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with merge to Seaford, Delaware#History. The latter is terrible anyway, and given that this area is now part of the town, it makes sense to talk about it as part of Seaford's history. Mangoe (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If every unpopulated but named crossroads or housing development in the county deserves its own article just because it is noted in the GNIS, then certainly an unincorporated town that existed as a separate entity for more than 50 years and was home to a railroad stop, a natural gas plant, river docks, and hundreds of residents before being annexed into another town is notable. Deeds for these properties in Seaford still have them listed on the Sussex County Recorder of Deeds site as Nanticoke City. For example, the property at 120 N Bradford Street in Seaford is listed on the Sussex County Recorder of Deeds as #54 Nanticoke City on both the mortgage and deed in the legal description of the property.Superman7515 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trends in library usage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not really an article about a notable subject but rather an informational essay about a broad topic. See WP:NOTESSAY. If the information on the page can be salvaged into an actual article then I think this page should be moved to draftspace. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of channels owned by Sun TV Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Also provide little functionality since most are redirects to the page where the list should be at anyway. CNMall41 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZDX:, Having "reliable sources" is not the requirement of WP:NLIST. What references discuss the list as a whole or group which is the requirement? I also do not see how such a short list would be necessary under WP:SPLITLIST.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to above suggestion. Even if a merge isn't useful, the title points to where you'd expect it, so I think it'd be useful for linking purposes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invasion of France (1795) order of battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested merge, with both parties agreeing this unreferenced page isn't helpful as a standalone article. Given the uncontested argument that it serves no encyclopedic purpose, and wouldn't improve Invasion of France (1795), deletion seems the best course. I also note that it was (re)created by a now-banned account. Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again before considering a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be around the average professor in this area. Here are the Scopus stats for McNulty and his 80 coauthors with ≥15 papers:
Total citations: average: 3110, median: 1975, McNulty: 1121.
Total papers: 70, 53, 46.
h-index: 26, 23, 19.
Top 5 papers: 1st: 399, 245, 142. 2nd: 258, 197, 85. 3rd: 186, 144, 68. 4th: 150, 121, 62. 5th: 128, 100, 58.
JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't think he meets academic notability, seems to be knowledgeable, but this reads more as a career retrospective than something showing notability. I'm certain he's a good professor, but I don't quite see notability.Does importance philanthropy as well, just wanted to make sure that was acknowledged. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tried to find sources in .ke websites about the educational foundation, no luck. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mylläri convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a bridge convention. Fails verification and a possible hoax or WP:A11 invention; unclear why this would be notable even if it could be verified. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pendleton Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find evidence of notability as either a populated place (WP:NPLACE) nor a geographic feature (WP:NATFEAT). GNIS only lists it as a summit, not as a populated place. The only information about it as a feature is trivial mentions like the Appletons' Atlas citation. Similarly, while there are plenty of trivial mentions of it (mostly related to the eponymous road and church), it does not appear to ever have been an officially recognized place, nor is there significant coverage about the place itself. The only two sources in the article that actually give any details about the place - "Etymology Nerd" and Lynne Holden - are both self-published and do not count as reliable sources. Redirection to North Stonington, Connecticut would be a reasonable AtD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudheer Dara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tried to fixed the page, but i failed to fix the notability. He is an ulelected politician, fails WP:NPOL. Looking at WP:GNG, some articles including ABP News [7] looks like advertisement as it is published in Brand Wire section. Other article and citations also needs to be checked. Taabii (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is no bolded Keep but the article creator is arguing for it so I don't think this can close as a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banff and Macduff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't appear to be an ambiguous topic so a DAB is not appropriate here anymore than any other term like Tiger and elephant, France and Germany, Facebook and Wikipedia or California and Rhode Island. This is effectively an WP:XY situation where having a DAB is not appropriate. Maybe due to the history needing to be preserved it could be moved to something like Banff, Scotland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Jhanjeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page was previously deleted, and a draft already exists that has been declined. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and Also see, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some analysis based on the new source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Powerking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already soft deleted once in 2012 (not eligible for G4), the only non-primary source that is given this time is [8] which is far from being in-depth. With a WP:BEFORE, the only additional source I found is [9], of which I'm not sure of the reliability. Not very optimistic for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sing-yung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly written by someone close to the subject, fails WP:PROF. Remsense ‥  08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Wang, William 汪威廉 (2023-03-29). "兩棲學人吳興鏞——Father's Gold Secret讀後(汪威廉)" [Polymath scholar Wu Xingyong——After reading Father's Gold Secret (William Wang)]. Ming Pao Monthly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-05.

      The article notes: "在學生的年代,吳興鏞先生台灣大學畢業後,到美國深造。分別在華大(University of Washington)與霍大(Johns Hopkins University)修得雙博士。近半世紀以來,他既在加州長堤榮民醫院擁有研究室,又到加州大學爾灣校區醫學院任教。對甲狀腺素的研究,成就卓越。他曾發現胎兒的甲狀腺素代謝以硫酸化徑路為主,同時一部分硫酸化甲狀腺素由胎兒轉到母體,成為由他命名的「吳氏複合體」(W-Compound),作為胎兒甲狀腺功能的指標,或可做未來第二代檢查的指標,曾獲美國專利。"

      From Google Translate: "When he was a student, Mr. Wu Xingyong went to the United States for further study after graduating from National Taiwan University. He obtained double doctorates from the University of Washington and Johns Hopkins University respectively. For nearly half a century, he has had a research laboratory at Long Beach Veterans Hospital in California and taught at the School of Medicine at the University of California, Irvine. Research on thyroxine has achieved excellence. He once discovered that fetal thyroxine metabolism is mainly based on the sulfation pathway. At the same time, part of the sulfated thyroxine is transferred from the fetus to the mother, becoming the "W-Compound" named by him, which serves as an indicator of fetal thyroid function. , which may be used as an indicator for future second-generation inspections, and has been patented by the United States."

    2. Yu, Jiye 俞继业; Jiang, Shouwen 江守文 (2016-09-22). Chen, Yan 陈燕 (ed.). "海外赤子吴兴镛首回故里 向宁波市档案馆捐赠历史见证" [Overseas Chinese Wu Xingyong returns to hometown for the first time and donates historical evidence to Ningbo Archives]. 中国宁波网 [China Ningbo Network] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-05.

      The article notes: "吴兴镛,祖籍北仑区戚家山街道青峙村,1939年生于四川,1963年毕业于台湾大学,1972年毕业于美国约翰·霍普金斯大学医学院,获医学博士学位;他从事甲状腺素代谢研究36年,有专书、专利及论文多项,1991年升任美国加州大学欧文(音译)医学院教授至今;他是号称“蒋介石的总账房”、亲历大陆黄金运台重要人物、台湾钢铁界元老吴嵩庆之子,"

      From Google Translate: "Wu Xingyong, whose ancestral home is Qingzhi Village, Qijiashan Street, Beilun District, was born in Sichuan in 1939. He graduated from National Taiwan University in 1963 and from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 1972 with a doctorate in medicine. He has been engaged in thyroid hormone metabolism research for 36 years and has published many books, patents and papers. In 1991, he was promoted to professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine. He is the son of Wu Songqing, who is known as "Chiang Kai-shek's chief accountant", an important figure who witnessed the transportation of gold from the mainland to Taiwan, and a veteran of Taiwan's steel industry."

    3. Li, Jing 李菁 (2010). "我的父亲与黄金运台之谜" [My father and the mystery of gold transport to Taiwan]. Sanlian Lifeweek (in Chinese). No. 11. Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-05.

      The article notes: "一个偶然的机会,美国加州大学尔湾医学院教授吴兴镛开始了这段复杂而艰涩的调查。吴兴镛的父亲吴嵩庆曾担任国民党军财务军需署长15年之久,从表面上看,他的职位并不高,但是这期间所管理的军费在国民党政府总预算中最高曾占2/3以上。此外,在国民党政府最艰难时期(1948~1949),国库大半资金也暂时由他与中央银行共同监管。吴兴镛的调查,让我们得以看清60多年前,一段颇为特殊的历史事件。"

      From Google Translate: "By chance, Wu Xingyong, a professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, began this complex and difficult investigation. Wu Xingyong's father, Wu Songqing, served as the director of the KMT's military finance and munitions department for 15 years. On the surface, his position was not high, but the military expenses he managed during this period accounted for more than 2/3 of the KMT government's total budget. In addition, during the most difficult period of the KMT government (1948-1949), most of the treasury funds were temporarily supervised by him and the central bank. Wu Xingyong's investigation allows us to see clearly a very special historical event more than 60 years ago."

    4. Yuan, Hang 袁航 (2023-10-31). "当秘密不再是秘密,《黄金密档》多角度解析"运金沉案"" [When secrets are no longer secrets, "Golden Secret Files" analyzes the "Gold Transport Case" from multiple angles] (in Chinese). Shanghai Bank Museum [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-05 – via NetEase.

      The article notes: "本书作者吴兴镛是“蒋介石的总账房”、联勤总部财务军需署署长吴嵩庆(1901-1991)之子。在父亲逝世多年后,吴兴镛无意间发现其留下的绝密“军费日志”,于是开始了十余年探寻真相的历程,在此期间他发现了惊人的秘密——蒋介石隐藏的军费黄金档案。"

      From Google Translate: "The author of this book, Wu Xingyong, is the son of Wu Songqing (1901-1991), the director of the Finance and Ordnance Department of the Joint Logistics Headquarters and "Chiang Kai-shek's chief accountant". Many years after his father's death, Wu Xingyong accidentally discovered the top-secret "military expenditure diary" left by his father, and began a journey of more than ten years to explore the truth. During this period, he discovered an astonishing secret - Chiang Kai-shek's hidden military expenditure gold archives."

    5. Lin, Honghan 林宏翰 (2023-09-10). Wei, Shu 韋樞 (ed.). "回顧黃金運台歷史 旅美醫師呼籲跨黨派團結" [Looking back on Taiwan's golden history, doctor in the United States call for cross-party unity] (in Chinese). Central News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-05.

      The article notes: "吳興鏞現年84歲,1963年畢業於國立臺灣大學醫學系,赴美留學之後,先後獲得華盛頓大學的實驗病理學博士、約翰霍普金斯大學醫學博士,在甲狀腺領域具權威地位。"

      From Google Translate: "Wu Xingyong is 84 years old. He graduated from the Department of Medicine at National Taiwan University in 1963. After studying in the United States, he received a doctorate in experimental pathology from the University of Washington and a doctorate in medicine from Johns Hopkins University. He has an authoritative position in the field of thyroid."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wu Sing-yung (simplified Chinese: 吴兴镛; traditional Chinese: 吳興鏑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some input regarding the new source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New source assessment as requested: Yu & Jiang 2016 and Lin 2023 I earlier presented as unelaborated bare links – probably due to being late for work – both of which I characterised as IS RS SIGCOV; Yuan 2023 (n.b.: broken archive link) and Wang 2023 are book reviews with a brief author bio, which I am not sure contribute to NBASIC but I think contribute to NAUTHOR? Li 2010 is RS and borderline SIGCOV, depending on how generously it's interpreted.
No SIGCOV found in gbooks search, just a lot of citations to his gold research, sometimes namedropping in a prose introduction to the claim.
I'm not really a notability specialist (or source reliability assessor, as evidenced by my ignorance of the deprecation of Epoch Times above). I'm not sure if this is a case where we should have an article about the subject's research with a smol bio subheading, or an article about the subject with a subheading on his work. Either would work for me, with page anchor redirect targets as appropriate, but I believe we should have some article here.
Also, as much as I love amphibious scholar as a machine translation of 兩樓學人 in the title of Wang 2023, if it ends up cited in the article I might recommend polymath scholar or (for fun) double doctor. Folly Mox (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", so I think any independent reliable source that provides nontrivial biographical coverage of the subject contributes to notability. I think there is so much biographical coverage about Wu Sing-yu across all the sources that he easily meets the notability guideline.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is a good resource for determining what the previous consensus on reliability was on frequently discussed sources. Responding to your question above about "medrel", I think it's a reference to WP:MREL, which means a source is "marginally reliable".

Thank you for pointing out a better translation of 兩樓學人. I've fixed that in the reference so that if it is copied to the article in the future, it will be with the accurate translation. Cunard (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is clearly an advertorial-style TV show that lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources under WP:NTV and WP:GNG. In terms of existing sources, the Herald Sun reference is actually to a suburban local paper owned by the same company, not to the Melbourne Herald Sun itself. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The show seems clearly notable as an established broadcast TV program. The fact that the actual content of the show might be fluffy business cheerleading seems to be influencing the nomination, and it shouldn’t, that has nothing to do with the notability of the show.
The fact that this article is fluffy cheerleading however, is relevant, and this article isn’t ready to be public in its current form, hence the nomination. It will need an eventual source analysis but that’s premature until the article is NPOV.
When that happens, the analysis of sources should be mindful that this is media, and coverage of media within other media tends to follow different conventions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sourcing here is very poor indeed. Tangential sources are used to prop up statements about companies mentioned in the article, bulking up the overall source count but adding nothing to the very scanty notability of this show. So we have a lot of content like "It has been credited with helping businesses gain exposure and recognition, as seen with companies like Core9" sourced to the Core9 blog. And this is by no means atypical. Sources 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 are TV listings (and by no means unique in this - it's just wearying picking through the 79 sources in this article - almost all of which are tangential, non-RS, listings or sourced to the show itself. There's literally nothing there, the whole article's SYNTH, OR and in short a man of straw. And once again, we have descended into poetry... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pendragon Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of unnotable book publishing companies. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree this isn't a notable publisher and this article has no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch(talk) 14:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Benedict Munro, Baron von Meikeldorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable 17th century english soldier. I was unable to find anything about him online. The sources in this article link to other Wikipedia articles and do not appear to be related to him at all. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Mewah National Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not qualify for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 17:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oceanian under-23 bests in athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't an official list kept by Oceania Athletics Association and appears to be full of original research. Plus, the tables are incomplete. Besides the senior ranks, World Athletics or continental governing bodies typically only keep an official U20 World Record list ("junior") and a U18 World Best list ("youth"). Having record lists that are incomplete and not official seems like a poor choice. I am not nominating the Europe U23 list and South America U23 list for deletion as these have official records kept by European Athletics Association and Atletismo Sudamericano. It's definitely a lot of work to put lists like this together, so I suggest that whoever made this article save a copy in the event this and the articles below get deleted. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above (i.e: unofficial list, original research, incomplete tables):

List of Asian under-23 bests in athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of African under-23 records in athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of North, Central American and Caribbean under-23 records in athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of world under-23 bests in athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allendorf Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources found.. The only sources in the article are primary sources. I will withdraw the nomination if a source passing WP:GNG can be given. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 16:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find independent sources with significant coverage. The existing sources about and around "Saiyar Mori Re" are mostly routine coverage and paid PR/brand content, failing WP:NFSOURCES. I am also unable to find the minimum number of full length reviews, so it fails WP:NFILM entirely. The sources mentioned in the previous XfD are paid PR, as evident from the bylines and reviews from unknown websites/blogs. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: See precedent AfD and arguments presented by User:DareshMohan, for example. A redirect seems warranted anyway (same comment) so that I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Freelance journalist/blogger, Brand promoted content and an article from an unknown website with no byline? Can you please read the nomination statement and WP:NFILM guideline once again and consider revising your rationale to a policy based one instead of how you feel about deletion? Here are some more PR articles that they have given out: [19], [20], [21] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please read DareshMohan's argument? Gujarat is not a "country" but I consider the film meets NFILM's inclusionary criterion #3, if you really wish me to provide a link to a guideline. I'll stand by my !vote, if I may. I've added a couple of things to the page, rapidly. -Mushy Yank. 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All you have added so far is just brand promoted content, routine coverage and passing mentions with no bylines. Nearly five years on Wikipedia, yet how you interpret WP:NFIC to fit your own views is astonishing.
    Here, "distributed domestically in a country" means distributed within India. This film didn't see the light outside Gujarat and we are not maintaining a database of films released in India, but rather of notable films released in India. Comparing WP:NFIC#3's weight of a film being released/distributed domestically in a country is nowhere close to that of a film being distributed within a state. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "didn't see the light outside Gujarat" is an absurd rationale. Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally, comprises multiple industries based on language and regional distinctions. The subject here being included in the Gujarati cinema, though less prominent than its counterparts like Bollywood or Tollywood, is still a significant part of this spectrum. Drawing a comparison between Gujarati cinema and the broader, more commercially dominant segments of Indian cinema is flawed. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:Notability is not a level playing field. MimsMENTOR talk 07:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't bring essays here. If you want to change existing policies, start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films).
    The current guidelines only support films that are successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film-producing country. You have contradicted yourself by mentioning "Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally". WP:NFIC#3 does not apply to major film producing countries and if Saiyar Mori Re were a significant part of this spectrum, it would have received reviews in reliable sources. Instead, it only has paid PR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep your tone out! this is a discussion space, essays, statements, facts and all are legit here. MimsMENTOR talk 09:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It seems the nominator has completely overlooked sources from TOI and other reputable outlets (which still lack full consensus on reliability). With that, giving an additional consideration and collectively reviewing the coverage's from the sources from TOI, TOI 2, TOI 3, One India and from the Gujarati media: navgujaratsamay, gujaratheadline and abtakmedia as well as the film's feature at the International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 is enough for notability.--MimsMENTOR talk 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TOI - Interview / Not independent / Pre-release coverage - Jun 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
    • One India - Partner content as indicated at the top - July 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
    • navgujaratsamay - Press release from trailer launch - Jun 27 (Part of PR)
    • gujaratheadline - Same as navgujaratsamay article / Press release from trailer launch - Jun 25 (Part of PR)
    • abtakmedia - Same as above / Press release from trailer launch - July 04, 2022
    • International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 - Trivial mention / no awards
    None of the above news media outlets covered or reviewed the film after its release. It seems you have overlooked both the sources and the nomination rationale. Would you mind sharing your source analysis below? Mims Mentor Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeraxmoira Before diving into a source analysis, could you clarify or provide evidence for your claim that each of all sources mentioned are "(part of PR)"? MimsMENTOR talk 11:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of coverage following the film's release is sufficient evidence. Apart from that, the OneIndia article is marked as "Partner Content". As for the trailer launch, inviting all the news media is standard practice and has been done this way consistently. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point about the "partner content", I do agree with that. However, when I emphasized the need for "collective reviewing" and "additional consideration" of the sources. I recognize that the coverage may not be strong enough to 'firmly keep' the article, but your own analysis doesn't solidly push for deletion either, leaning more towards WP:BARE. As for PR evidence, there isn't concrete proof to back up that claim you made (when you are talking about policies). Pre-release/press release (earned media) coverage isn’t inherently promotional, and reputable outlets like TOI often feature pre-release interviews without the coverage being purely PR-driven. MimsMENTOR talk 12:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are bringing in more essays to XfDs. Please understand that essays are not P&G and hold no significant value in XfDs. The TOI sources are insufficient for a standalone article, especially given that there are literally zero reviews available. There are three articles about the trailer launch featuring the same banner image, yet you believe this isn't sufficient evidence that the press was invited to the event. The sources here are nowhere close to meeting GNG or NFILM. If you disagree, please provide a source analysis that might help me better understand your point of view. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays arent binding, but they offer relevant interpretations in debates like XfDs, especially for borderline cases. Dismissing them outright doesnt negate their value in offering nuance. The TOI sources, while not extensive, still provide verifiable coverage. Prerelease coverage is common, even for non-blockbuster films. Moreover, you havent fully explained why multiple outlets covering the same trailer launch definitively proves PR involvement. The case is WP:BARE now. I believe I’ve made it clear what aspects of the discussion align with GNG, based on policy guidelines. The nominator seems fixated on a single point and dismisses valid considerations by labeling them "essays," which is unproductive. Since the conversation is going in circles, I’ll be stepping back. I suggest exploring more sources from Gujarati media to verify additional coverage of the film instead of narrowing the focus to a single angle.--MimsMENTOR talk 14:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no source analysis? Cool. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jaden McNeil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't actually see a reason that McNeil is notable himself. Yes, there are a load of sources mentioning the unpleasant comments that he comes out with, but he simply seems to be someone who has tagged along with other unpleasant characters, and has been noted as such by reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says in the Wikipedia guidelines if there's reliable sources about an individual, that's what determined notability. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is another in a long line of far-right nobodies who is only recognized for having a beef with another far-right personality. Does not satisfy WP:N, definitely does not satisfy WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's been very little discussion of specific sources, so I've gone ahead and started by making a source assessment table based on sources in the article:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The Kansas City Star Yes This is a WP:INDEPENDENT WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting Yes This is a reliable WP:NEWSORG Yes The source is principally about the article subject. Yes
The Manhattan Mercury Yes This is an independent daily mainstream newspaper doing its own reporting. Yes This is a 140-year-old well-established daily newspaper; WP:NEWSORG. Yes This source is directly covering the article subject in a substantial way, with the whole source principally focused on the article subject. Yes
Anti-defamation league ? Moot as not SIGCOV ? Moot as not SIGCOV No He gets name-dropped once, but that's about all the coverage he gets. No
The Collegian (KSU) 1 No Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. Yes why not? ? deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM. No
The Collegian (KSU) 2 No Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. Yes Why not? deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM. No
Southern Poverty Law Center 1 Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. Yes This coverage is principally about McNeil. Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 2 Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. No McNeil is not so much as mentioned by name once. No
Southern Poverty Law Center 3 Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. ? There's plenty of coverage of McNeil and Dickerman as a sort of group, but little of McNeil alone. In any case, going to be moot as WP:N notes that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, and we already have a contributing SPLC source above. ? Unknown
The Kansas City Star 2 Yes Independent WP:NEWSORG Yes A WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting Yes Seems to give substantial coverage to McNeil and his activities. Yes
The Daily Dot's "God" blog Yes Sure? No While WP:DAILYDOT is MREL, but looking more broadly at the God blog archives this looks like an opinionated blog that's just hosted on the platfom. ? Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions. No
BroBible Yes Sure? ~ I can't find anything in the WP:RSN archives or at WP:NPPSG, but this feel a lot like a WP:DEXERTO-level source Yes Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions. ~ Partial
Inside Higher Ed Yes Why not? Yes WP:NEWSORG Yes We've got two paragraphs about McNeil that pass the WP:100WT for independent prose, albeit barely. Yes
The Kansas City Star 3 Yes Independent WP:NEWSORG Yes WP:NEWSORG Yes WP:NEWSORG doing their own report principally about the subject and his activities. Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 4 Yes This is the same url as source 6 Yes This is the same url as source 6 Yes This is the same url as source 6 Yes
MEL Magazine Yes Sure? ~ RSN archives treat this as a mixed reliability source. Yes Three paragraphs about McNeil and his activities, passes the WP:100WT. ~ Partial
Mother Jones Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:MOTHERJONES, source is WP:GREL. Yes Five paragraphs are given in the article to coverage of McNeil; this is clearly SIGCOV. Yes
Vice Yes Why not? ~ The community doesn't have consensus regarding VICE's reliability. Yes Seems to provide significant secondary coverage of McNeil and his making allegations against Fuentes. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
What this reveals is that, based on solely sources in the article, McNeil has received WP:SIGCOV from at least the following sources:
  1. The Kansas City Star: 1, 2, 3
  2. The Manhattan Mercury: 1
  3. Southern Poverty Law Center: 1, maybe 2
  4. Mother Jones: 1.
This alone would easily pass WP:SIGCOV and, as there appears to be multiple events covered among these sources, this doesn't look like a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E case. The additional sources that one can google regarding the McNeil-KSU football affair really do drive home that not all of his coverage is about Nick Fuentes or storming the U.S. capitol:
McNeil-KSU football affair additional sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. Sports Illustrated
  2. The Manhattan Mercury
  3. Yahoo! News
  4. The Sporting News
  5. AP 1 and 2
  6. ESPN
  7. KC Star
  8. USA Today
As such, I think we have an individual here who easily passes WP:GNG, for whom no suitable merge target exists, and I think nom's contention that this is only someone who is covered in the context of Fuentes is plainly incorrect. In light of the breadth of coverage and the deep sourcing, there is nothing reasonable to do here but to keep.
Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - thanks to Red-tailed hawk for assessing the sources. Looks like GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: More about the controversial things said and the fallout than about the individual, from the sources. "Streamer says things, ruffles feathers, than fades away" seems to be the extent of what we have. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. Reliable sources like ADL, the Kansas city star, the Manhatten Mercury, Southern poverty law center all cover this individual. This goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. According with Wikipedia's guidelines, Notability isn't determined on what a certain individual is notable for, but if reliable sources cover him. However if it was the opposite, well they cover his falling out with Fuentes, His views, His association with Nick Fuentes, him being held accountable by Kansas State University for an offensive joke, him getting a girlfriend, etc. I don't even know why this is a discussion. His Wikipedia page has been up for about two years with barely anyone saying anything because it's common sense this goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    " Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable, this person wasn't notable before that happened. I'd be looking for extensive coverage of them before the event, which we don't seem to have. I've done things as a student and was held accountable, that's not really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b you've might've done bad things as a student, but news sources didn't cover it. Again, Wikipedia's notability policy are if reliable sources cover something, not "this isn't something I think is news worthy or topic worthy". As for "there needs to be extensive coverage of him before the Kansas University incident", why? Why does it matter what the first news source about him said? If multiple reliable sources cover him and different incidents involving him afterwards, that goes with Wikipedia's notability policy. But here, here's a news story covering him before the Kansas University incident. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nicholas-fuentes-america-first-infighting also I saw ESPN cover Jaden McNeil too, multiple reliable sources cover this guy, I'm struggling to understand why this is a discussion. Wikipedia's guidelines is clear as day. Wikipedia's guidelines say nothing about if you think something's news worthy, but if news outlets consider it news worthy. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That incident, for what it's worth, has been turned into a academic case study. It's not just that a kid said something inflammatory, it's that the incident was nationally covered and continued to receive attention in academics even after it was out of the news (in addition to the case study, described in a Ph.D. thesis). I think that reducing this to " Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable is a gross oversimplification here that misses just how big this was—and also ignores coverage in the context of other events as well. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons given above and on the talk page already. Two newspapers from his area discussing him, and Mother Jones and the SPLC discussing him in the context of someone else, and for an edgy remark he made, do not make him worthy of an entire article. Swinub 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swinub as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, ESPN, Yahoo News, USA today, sports illustrated and other huge mainstream sources cover thie guy. It's not just two news papers. And he's not only mentioned in the context of Nick Fuentes and an edgy tweet he made in 2020, as pointed out by me in multiple examples earlier. And as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, he easily passes WP:GNG HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more. Swinub 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more... no, that is patently false. SPLC covers this individual applying for and receiving Paycheck Protection Program funds, and Mother Jones doesn't so much as mention that inflammatory Tweet, but does provide significant coverage of this individual. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harvey Spevak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Passing mentions in the RS's in the article - most focus on his company, not him. Potential history of COI per article tag from 2020.

The only article I could find where he is the sole subject is this interview from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2017/04/07/harvey-spevak-the-leadership-lessons-hes-learned-from-growing-equinox/ Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the prior deletion discussion, this source is a Forbes contributor, so as far as I'm aware it loses its reliability. Notability is not inherited. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nasha Jurm Aur Gangsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find SIGCOV sources that would help this subject pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Even after its release, there are no reliable critical reviews available. I also searched in Hindi using 'नशा जुर्म और गैंगस्टर्स' but found nothing. The subject fails the notability criteria. GrabUp - Talk 14:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NjRAT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably doesn't meet WP:GNG. Devchar (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamna Pathak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking at the sources, it does not pass WP:GNG even. Mostly all the sources available on google are discussing her replacement in a notable show, see [22], [23], [24]. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavishya Malika Puran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose taking action on the article "Bhavishya Malika Puran" as it solely presents propaganda spread by news channels for financial gain. Context: The article is highly disputed, and its accuracy as a translation of the original Bhavishya Malika remains unverified. News channels have extensively covered this topic, primarily repeating the claims made by the Pandit. Unfortunately, the errors in this translated book, which appears to be motivated by financial interests, have gone unchallenged. Having carefully examined the book and its issues, I recommend one of the following actions: 1. Archive the article until credible evidence supporting its claims is provided. Or 2. Add a disclaimer to the article stating that it is a controversial issue and establish a Reception section to present a balanced view. — Preceding Ved Sharma comment added by Kharavela Deva (talkcontribs) 12:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DownloadStudio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"awarded by PC Magazine as the best download manager in its Utility Guide 2004". Is this enough for WP:NSOFT? I have my doubts. No other indications of notability in the article or in my BEFORE Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Download manager: The full review of the software in PC Mag can be found here, and a report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory gives a very brief description of its features (link). This level of sourcing is insufficient, but only by a hair. I could be persuaded to change my vote to Keep if someone else finds better sourcing, which I think is a real possibility. I will also note that the previous AfD contains a bunch of Keep votes that are prime examples of arguments to avoid, but one vote does suggest a decent merge target. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Molloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:BIO notability, most of the sources aren't independent of the subject. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLoyalOrder I'm counting 28 sources in that AFD, and its difficult to know what sources you are talking about specifically because they are not numbered. I suggest doing a WP:SIRS table source analysis here for clarity. You might also want to include the sources currently cited in the article as well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sure, i'll do that soon. thanks TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Currently used in article https://windycitytimes.com/2014/06/25/windy-city-times-30-under-30-to-be-honored-june-26/ No presumably presumably No X Mentioned in a list of a bunch of people by this local newspaper
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/31/2014-trans-100-includes-cece-mcdonald-fallon-fox#toggle-gdpr No No presumably No X Mentioned once, seemingly because she writes for them
https://web.archive.org/web/20190203133449/https://www.mediamatters.org/authors/parker-molloy/382 No No presumably No X an article she wrote, not about her
https://newrepublic.com/authors/parker-molloy No No No X its just a link to their author page
https://www.salon.com/writer/parker_marie_molloy/ No No No X ditto
https://thought.is/what-its-like-to-come-out-as-transgender-at-work/ Yes No ? No X article about herself
https://web.archive.org/web/20141104114234/http://parkthatcar.net/2012/07/16/oneoftherottenones/ No No ? No X blog post by her
Parker Marie Molloy (February 25, 2014). My Transgender Coming Out Story. Thought Catalog. ISBN 9781629210605. ? No ? No X dead link to ebook she wrote
https://web.archive.org/web/20150312125430/http://chicagoist.com/2014/03/02/interview_parker_marie_malloy_on_ca.php Yes No presumably No X interview of her
https://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/piers_morgan_grills_trans_activist.../ No Yes debatable Yes X just quotes a tweet of hers
https://web.archive.org/web/20201206162642/http://archive.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/20140124gilbert-golf-inventor-suicide-website-essay-anne-vanderbilt.html No Yes ? No X she's not mentioned
https://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/ No Yes ? No X ditto
https://web.archive.org/web/20170914124936/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/3-signs-we-have-a-long-way-to-go-on-trans-rights-20150113 No No no No X an article she wrote, not about her
https://www.huffpost.com/voices/topic/transgender No debatable X its just the topic page for all trans articles
https://www.salon.com/2013/08/23/the_happy_story_of_my_transgender_coming_out/ Yes No debatable No X article about herself
https://apnews.com/article/trump-media-election-rallies-facts-kamala-harris-e906e990b5dcfe44b5e672336fe82b32 No Yes Yes Yes X leads with briefly mentioning her perspective on sanewashing of trump and then talks about other people
https://archive.ph/20141108192631/http://nlgja.org/2014/transgender-journalists-and No No ? No X just lists her a particpating in a talk
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/08/22/trans-activists-scrutinize-pvt-manning-coverage/ No Yes Yes Yes X just quotes a tweet of hers
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108220813/http://theweek.com/article/index/250110 No No ? No X quotes her amongst other trans people
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2014/12/31/transgender-teen-leelah-alcorn-death-needs-mean-something/4hw6uPd8NtjIbn8kAdyAbM/story.html No No presumably No X her commenting on something, not about her
https://www.autostraddle.com/let-it-go-for-the-last-time-trans-women-were-not-born-boys-255055/ No Yes ? Yes X briefly quoting an op-ed she co wrote, amongst other trans people
http://www.thetrans100.com/about/ No presumably No X just a link to the trans 100 org, she's not mentioned
https://web.archive.org/web/20150213020921/http://www.nwpc.org/2014emmanominees No presumably ? No X list of people who received an honor from an org
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108212634/http://www.lapressclub.org/Resources/Documents/Finalists_NAEJ_2014.pdf No presumably ? No X ditto
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/17/t-word-new-n-word No No presumably No X an article she wrote, not about her
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/18/rupaul-stokes-anger-use-transphobic-slur No No presumably No X ditto
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-marie-molloy/gay-dudes-can-you-just-not_b_4330353.html No No no No X ditto
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108213125/http://www.pqmonthly.com/parker-marie-molloy-elaborates-gay-dudes-can-just/17814 Yes No ? No X interview of her
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/parker-marie-molloy_b_5077322 not really Yes no Yes X not really about her, author mostly talks about their own experience in response to parker
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/04/17/op-ed-burning-books-one-word-time No Yes ? No X doesn't mention parker
https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/about-the-word-tranny/Content?oid=19946137 No Yes ? No X ditto
https://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html Maybe Yes probably not Yes X perennial soucres describes boingboing.net as a group blog
https://web.archive.org/web/20160311044304/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/our-lady-j/rupauls-drag-race_b_5148719.html No Yes debatable Yes X doesn't mention parker
http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_498_-_rupaul_charles ? Yes No ? X ru paul podcast episode, presumably paul talks about his opinion
https://web.archive.org/web/20160819021941/http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/huffpostgays-offensive-video-of-drag-queen-shooting-tra-1566525131 No Yes No Yes X short blog post it looks like
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/14/rupauls-drag-race-logo-tv-apologize-transphobic-slur No No presumably Yes X an article she wrote, not about her
https://web.archive.org/web/20141029221559/http://www.glaad.org/blog/update-female-or-she-male-sketch-and-rupauls-drag-race No Yes presumably Yes X doesn't mention her
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2014/04/open-letter-100-trans-women-stand-against-calpernia-addams-and-andrea-james/ not really ? No No X a petition defending her
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/calpernia-addams-andrea-james_b_5146415 not really ? No No X ditto
https://www.queerty.com/trans-violence-watchdogs-issue-advisory-warning-against-advocate-writer-and-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140903 not really Yes ? Yes X mentions a previous article about parker and then that were added to a list, that's all
https://www.queerty.com/park-that-attitude-the-danger-of-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140827 probably Yes ? Yes ? unclear on the reliability of Queerty. also not sure if its coverage of her is signifcant
from prev AFD https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/05/06/alaska-thunderfuck-apologizes-controversial-video not really No ? No X reads like an ad for a podcast she was on
https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2014/10/30/20923525/sl-letter-of-the-day-drag-trans-trans-drag not really No ? No X article isn't about her, author just asked her opinion on something
links to a bunch of websites that she writes articles for No No X these aren't sources
https://web.archive.org/web/20210623155424/https://www.glaad.org/blog/author-transphobia-perfectly-natural-asked-take-leave-ad-agency not really Yes Yes Yes ? short article about Gavin McInnes that quotes a tweet of her's
https://windycitytimes.com/2014/05/14/chicagoan-writes-nationally-from-the-t-perspective/ Yes ? ? no? X its mostly an interview, which would be primary source

TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably wrong on some of these judgements but not wrong to the point it changes the determinations, i think. 0 definitely good sources. Also most of these, regardless of quality, talk about like 1 controversy from a decade ago TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm confused and impressed that someone would make a gigantic chart to evaluate these sources. Yes, many of them are bad or irrelevant, but so what? There are a lot of subjective judgements of individual sources that I do not share and I believe that Carrite's sources provided in the previous AFD establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Carrite lists three sources: source 1 isn't independent and is primary (it's mostly an interview of her, the information is coming from the subject), source 2 is from a deprecated source WP:HUFFPOCON (basically a blog post, no editorial oversight), source 3 i'd argue its not really significant coverage of parker, more of one incident involving Parker. Unclear if this site has an editorial (no about us section) or if this is just basically a blog post.
    Even included that, that's one iffy source.
    Also note these three sources are from 2014, not really sustained coverage. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep. We need to judge this by the best sources. The inclusion of additional primary sources is neither hear nor there when it comes to deletion. (Any truly superfluous ones can be removed from the article.) I think we can safely disregard the big table of sources above as it lists several secondary sources as not being so. For example, interviews are not primary sources (unless the subject is self-publishing the interview, I guess). I'm sure that this is a genuine misunderstanding but it reveals the entire AfD to be misconceived. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: If it is true that Malloy genuinely requests deletion then I do not oppose deletion on that basis. She is clearly notable enough for us to have an article but not so significantly notable that we must have an article about her, i.e. where not having an article would create a hole in the encyclopaedia. This is a middle position where discretion might be exercised legitimately. I am neutral on that, provided that there really is an unambiguous request for deletion. I guess that makes my !vote into a weak keep overall so I've updated it accordingly. If deleted then the article title should probably redirect to The Advocate. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what are the best sources? interviews being primary sources is based on WP:Interviews, since any information they give about themselves is primary and that's what the article is about TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources (I just added one). Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my !vote as I just saw on the article talk page that the subject wants this page removed. Funcrunch (talk)
  • Delete: I do not believe Carritte's sources establish notability. The HuffPost source is unusable per WP:HUFFPOCON. I don't think the Windy City source is sufficiently independent, but even if it was that only leaves us with two usable sources between it and Queerty. The sources currently in the article seem to be a mixture of passing mentions or Molloy herself. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment. I've just searched for her name on google scholar and seen that she's frequently mentioned as an example of someone who has said or written something. She must be widely known. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated now that I've noticed what the subject herself says and looked at the article in that light. Essentially it's at risk of violating WP:NPOV throughout, in its present form. ("...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources".) I know that doesn't have an impact on notability but it's a good reason to delete, without ruling out someone completely rewriting it in the future. --Northernhenge (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, she's borderline notable, however it's not a clear case as much of this is what she said/wrote, not independent coverage. Together with subject requesting deletion, I think we err on the side of their request as a BLP. Star Mississippi 02:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the case for meeting GNG is very weak, the article is 10 years out of date, and the subject of the article doesn't feel they meet the notability criterion. There is not enough coverage to keep this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: is still mentioned in academic footnotes as of 2024 [25], with a limited amount of scholarly notice [26]. There's a limited amount of coverage as shown in the source charts above about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Symphony of Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The more you look at sources, the more notability seems to be lacking. Many are based on band members' own words via interviews. Some other sources include articles written by band members themselves. Once you see past the notability mask smoke screen, the notability of this band appears quite thin and below meeting GNG. Also, the article was created by an undisclosed paid editing user. That editor appears to have a COI with this article. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a situation I've occasionally come across where an album might be more notable than a band. Season of Death has some significant coverage from HM, The Metal Resource, and Teeth of the Divine. That last one is currently being discussed at the reliable sources notice board. I noticed the review is written by the site owner, which would mean that it can't be used for any biographical statements. The site owner is a reputable music journalist, so that does confer notability to the album. however, apart from the album reviews, most of the other stuff I'm seeing is either press release copy, interviews from unreliable or self-published sources (which are fine for verifiable statements about the band but not for establishing notability), or COI sources (The Metal Onslaught and Indie Vision Music). I am leaning toward merge with Season of Death.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per discussion with Graywalls below, I agree that this does not need to merge with one of the albums. So in that case, delete--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ABOUTSELF. "unduly self serving" is often black and white, but there's grey area in some cases.
For example, "first luxury boutique hotel in town" citing the hotel's page or "a 100,000 lumen flash light released in 2024" citing the manufacturer's website of a light sold for $10 on Amazon. The former is fluffing, the latter is likely objectively inaccurate. However, citing the hotel's page "is a hotel in town xxx" or the flashlight's manufacturer's as "a flashlight release in 2024" would pass for factual accuracy. In 99.99% of cases, that flashlight's page has no place being cited or mentioned AT ALL on Wikipedia though. I think WP:RS is a concept unique to Wikipedia. Much of the sources in Symphony of Heaven don't substantiate inclusion worthiness even if factually accurate. Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basic biographical facts and album releases are fine to cite to the subject and those affiliated with the subject. But, if attributable to the subject, they don't give the subject notability. Verifiability isn't the same as notability. The flashlight hypothetical is a hypothetical and isn't relevant here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done)
That merge suggestion appears unsound though. I was only suggesting that be merged INTO this, because Season of Death is one of the many notability failing articles of Symphony of Heaven. So, that being merged into this would be reasonable if this isn't notable, but if they're both non-notable, then deletion is sometimes the sound option. Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I found three independent reliable sources for that album, it's notable--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we had an article on Battery Company Inc, and separate articles on AA, C and D batteries of theirs, merging individual product into the company would make sense if the company is notable, but if we only had sources to make the AA stick, I don't believe that's a right re-direct target. That's the situation we have here. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your analogy. The album is notable. The band is not (or barely is).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make much of a sense to merge the band into an album for the sake of saving cruft from a non-notable band. Their other non-notable albums would then re-direct, rather than merge into one of the albums. Though, my order of preerence would be Del->redir->m erge. There are three other albums, so this would be a situation where there's really no appropriate singular re-direct target. Like I said, it's like re-directing a non-notable battery company into their marginally notable "non-notable comany's AA battery" while there's an article each in existence for each of the company's battery size. As you can see, this is an illogical target. Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I follow now. Yes, I suppose I agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 23:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Summers (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. He participated in some notable darts tournaments, but the article says he lost in the first round. A Google search reveals a Facebook page that says he died 5 years ago, but no other substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 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.
Steve Douglas (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anuvadi Svara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot move this back to draft unilaterally, which would be my preferred solution. See WP:DRAFTOBJECT for the reason. That means we are at AfD for this unreferenced article, and I am proposing Draftify as the outcome in order that the creating editor might have the peace and quiet of Draft space to comply with WP:V 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've slapped a WP:R2 on Anuvadi Svara. Shall we move the draft back to mainspace and allow this AfD to remain open? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone My feeling is that it should run its course. Should the creating editor request draftification themselves I think we should accede to their request assuming no-one has !voted to delete, and speedy close. It would be reasonable and polite to do so 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know if there is presently a need to draftify, I've gone through and added some content from the first sources. There may be a consensus driven conversation to be had about the notability of the subject (and I've left that maintenance tag on the article), alongside similar articles as Vadi (music) and Samavadi or if these might be better off merged into a single target, but I don't know if that was being considered in this AfD as nominated. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC) P.S.: The correct AT is likely Anuvadi but I hesitate in moving anything with an open AfD. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (pending improvemnts) - the sources suggest this is not a term for a specific pitch or a specific type of music, but a WP:DICTDEF general term for an assonant note in classical Indian music. There is probably something encyclopedic to be said here, but the article does not say it; and Vadi (music) is not currently a plausible redirect target. Remaining in draft space appears the best option for now. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
József Fellai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am aware of his 89 minutes of football in the top tier of Hungary but I don't believe that that makes Fellai notable by default. Under current guidelines he needs to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The only decent source that I can find is Pécsi Újság but this uses Pécsi MFC as its source so is not independent of the subject. In any case, one source is never enough to presume notability for a footballer. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaikyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be WP:TOOSOON in my view. Recent startup with no WP:NCORP-level coverage. Please also note that, whilst not a reason for deletion, the article was created by one of the company's founders so WP:COI is present. If kept, the article needs rewriting for WP:NPOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with this being speedied, however, I suspect that the creator will recreate it soon anyway so we'll end up here sooner or later. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than willing to make any neccesary changes to the page to let it stay up. Please consider, it's a humble request Rishitshivesh (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add some articles from Indian news sources discussing Aaikyam in significant detail. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a while to collect the articles and put it up there. Please do not delete the page until then. Rishitshivesh (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have 7 days to add news sources covering Aaikyam to the article or to this discussion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 13:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EgyptAir Flight 763 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:EVENTCRIT. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with none of them providing significant coverage of the event beyond a simple summary. This seems to be the best of the sources that I've found, however it doesn't provide significant coverage of the event. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Ahumada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced BLP with no real assertion of notability. I found Los Kamas Deportes but this isn't enough for WP:SPORTBASIC on its own. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Elizalde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In a WP:BEFORE search, I was unable to find even one decent source towards WP:SPORTBASIC. Spanish Wikipedia also doesn't have any. Article creator unfortunately created hundreds of these. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eglantin Dhima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His 29 minutes in the top tier in Albania might be a (weak) indicator of notability but I can't find any actual significant coverage of him. My searches didn't yield any WP:SPORTBASIC-worthy coverage. . Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanvaas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upcoming film with no independent or secondary sources. Draftified to allow for more development but immediately restored to mainspace. All the sources are sponsored content or press releases. bonadea contributions talk 07:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, both sources are in the article (more than once I think — there's a lot of duplicate sources in there, and a lot of disruptive refbombing with more and more copies of the same crap advertorials) and they are worse than useless. Unless there are independent sources there shouldn't be an article. --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I am not too much into this but while I do think that Indeed the page has not been created properly, I believe it can significantly be improved as there is not much time left in the release of this movie. I believe the page should be draftified once again, the author has already been blocked indefinitely and now I believe the other editors will be able to improve the draft and add independent, reliable sources to establish notability and submit it for AfC once it's ready. -- AstuteFlicker (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AstuteFlicker:, just to clarify, are you voting to keep or draftify?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry :).. That is the reason why I said I am not too much into this. I meant to Draftify this article again... AstuteFlicker (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Just because it is about to be released is no reason to keep a page that does not meet notability guidelines. Draftify until the release and there are reviews, unless it can be shown there is something notable about the production. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The film has garnered SigCov in sources such as Times of India, India Today, and DNA India. These outlets have extensively reported on the film's promotional activities, cast, and production details and so passes WP:NFF. Also, with ongoing media attention, it is likely to gain further SigCov, reinforcing its notability.--MimsMENTOR talk 14:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw those references as well, but which ones are considered reliable? I am specifically asking about the reference, not the publication as these are non-bylined sources falling under churnalism or WP:NEWSORGINDIA.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend seeking out current sources, as there are enough secondary coverages available. As I mentioned earlier, with the movie set to release in less than a month, media attention around its post-production and details is increasing daily, particularly given that many of the cast and crew members are well-known figures in the industry. MimsMENTOR talk 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sought out current sources. You I cannot find them. You have failed to provide them upon me asking for them. The fact it releases in less than a month is not a reason to keep something that does not have the significant coverage to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 It seems you misunderstood my comment. I wasn’t arguing in favor of keeping the article just because the release is imminent. Instead, I was highlighting that given the popularity of the cast and crew, a significant amount of coverage tends to surface, similar to any other films with a notable lineup. Please read the comments more carefully. Again, since the release is about two weeks away, you can already find relevant coverage online, feel free to check for yourself. MimsMENTOR talk 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep with draftify as second choice. My first impulse was that a film not yet released is usually not notable, but a cursory look at the sources has changed my mind. I will defer to anyone who has read them in depth. I did not. Will note that notability may change. An upcoming film may be cease to be notable if it later flops or proves unimportant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The press releases and similar do not pass GNG, and the Bru Times News appears to be paid / vanity press. I do not see citations for WP:NPROF. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the sources are thin and commercial, but for one (primary source) article by Brock, and I agree with nom about the "Bru Times News". This doesn't constitute reliable sourcing, so notability is not established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been around since 2013, yet makes no claim of notability for any of the songs. The only reference is a book called "...130 Popular Songs...", which appears to be just a book of song lyrics, so it does not appear useful as a reliable source. There are a dozen more articles in this set. This article and its siblings appear to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or one of the other guidelines on that page. I suspect that List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi could be kept if some reliable sources were added, but the alphabetical directory pages should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (B–C) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (D–F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (G) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (H–I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (J) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (K) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (L) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (M) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (N) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (P–R) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (T) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (U–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the 14 other articles of this form should be bundled with this nomination; I shall do so now. There are no sources that suggest this level of detail is encyclopedic in nature; perhaps @Jax 0677: can explain why these database-detailed articles are notable. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alexei Pavlov (swimmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT as there is not significant coverage in reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC as well as WP:GNG TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rokenrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did a quick google search. Unable to find any link which mentions this album. Can't establish notability. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Elvises per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more opinions and to see if this proposed Redirect has any support.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CarX Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per general notability. A quick look using the search engine finds no additional significant coverage beyond the already cited Multiplayer.it review and a briefly descriptive GRY entry. There just isn't enough here to establish a notable article. Was going to draftify but it looks like a draft already exists. Also thought about a merge but it looks like no other CarX titles or the franchise itself has an article. VRXCES (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A review of Russian sources on ruwiki please. Playground.ru has a list of the series with articles. IgelRM (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can take a closer look, but a brief skim of the page indicates there's no reception section or reviews of the game. One source that appears to do so is just conveying quotes from Steam user reactions which is just a secondary form of WP:USERG. VRXCES (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ground News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, been in place since March 2024 UnikumMitsu-bishi (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. While I agree the article could be improved, I think there are enough sources currently including news coverage and a PLOS ONE study that demonstrate some notability. Since it has significant coverage from independent sources, I don't see how deletion would be warranted under WP:GNG Urchincrawler (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2603:6011:9600:52C0:414B:816B:94D5:DA4 (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ground News is trying to fill an important function for us, there is always controversy about the news, bias in the media, pollution of the discussion. Let's not be excessively critical of this organization for their imperfections, we can all post comments throughout the unsociable media and call attention to places where we see room for improvement. If this article needs more sources, let's find some, not throw away what we have now. Bartimas2 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baron Crathorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Catalogue entry with no indication of WP:GNG. Sourced to a catalogue of peerage, poorly. My BEFORE does not show anything except passing mentions. There is no applicable SNG, noting in WP:COMMONOUTCOMES regarding this type of an article, so we should hold it to a general GNG - and it fails this, badly. As do many other article sin Category:Baronies in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. WP:NOTCATALOGUE comes to mind, too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anant J Talaulicar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a chairman (only for India) of a company does not signify that the individual is notable. Let's talk about citations: Economic Times - WP:RS-No, Secondary-Yes; Motor India Magazine- Not a reliable source; Secondary-No; MoneyControl- This is an announcement by the company, WP:RS-No, This is an appointment of MD; Hindu Business Line- WP:RS-No, This is the resignation from MD post; Business Standard (Interview)- This is an interview, WP:RS-No; LiveMint- WP:RS-No, Independent-No, Secondary-No; Economic Times Auto- This is again an interview fails WP:SIGCOV; Motown India- Not a reliable source. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakhtar40 Giving some merit to your points, I disagree as well! The WP:NBUSINESSPERSON clearly cites Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable. Cummins is listed in the Fortune 500 (US), you can verify that with the link mentioned above and also, Cummins India is indeed a part of the global Cummins brand, not a subsidiary or a separate entity under the same founder, it’s the same company operating in India. Thats said, passes the criteria straightway. Additionally, other sources, though not primary, provide valuable supplementary coverages, with the strongest being from the Times-Union. GNG is met!! MimsMENTOR talk 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rationale for deletion is "fails GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage". But that's not how it works. Please read WP:ARTN. You should always do a WP:BEFORE search before proposing deletion.
  • @Bakhtar40 On what are you basing your assertions that none of these publications are reliable sources? I just reread WP:RS to see if I had missed anything, and I'm now rather confident that under WP:NEWSORG that most of these very clearly are reliable sources. Economic Times is a publication of the 180-year-old Times of India, the country's most respected newspaper, for example. Could you please provide more evaluation of each publication's reliability than just a "WP:RS-no".
  • The MoneyControl piece is not an announcement by the company. If you read the text, it's a small article by MoneyControl publishing the company's announcement. While a press release itself doesn't help establish notability because it isn't independent, a newspaper's act of writing a story around a company's announcement does suggest notability.
  • Interviews are not about establishing reliability. On the contrary, the fact that a fifty-year-old business journal performs and publishes an interview DOES help establish the interviewee's notability. Davemc0 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:TOI, Times of India and its subsidiaries are not considered as reliable. Moneycontrol is also not a reliable resource. The article is a paid placement. And Interviews generally not count as independent and secondary. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joy (Inside Out) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tried to do BEFORE, but I don't see any SIGCOV but movie reviews and about actors. Her current reception was mostly about the actress, who voiced Joy; not the character itself. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pantodapoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced stub gives a definition for "Pantodapoi" which appears to be original research as the main sources found online are product pages for "Pantodapoi Phalangite" miniatures made by a maker called "Xyston". Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Toys, and Greece. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not expert enough with Greek military units to feel confident in voting, but I did check some typical reference sources, including Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities and Pauly-Wissowa, neither of which has an entry for "pantodapoi". I also checked under "auxiles" or related headwords. A broad search of the classical materials at Perseus turned up the word with reference to a kind of sauce (perhaps I misunderstood) and in a couple of other places, but not with reference to soldiers. A Google search for "pantodapoi soldiers" turned up a set of circular-looking definitions, perhaps based on this article or wherever its definition came from in the first place.
I suspect that what has happened here is that the article's creator confused a description of some auxiliary soldiers with a name for their unit: pantodapoi phalangites means "miscellaneous soldiers (in a phalanx)", not "a particular type of soldiers (natives) making up a phalanx". But it would be nice to see if anyone with more expertise in Greek military history concurs with this. Not certain that the general notability guideline is what's relevant here; if the definition were correct, I think the topic would be notable. But if, as I believe, the article is the result of a misunderstanding, then it can be deleted as though it were a hoax (albeit an accidental one). P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hakan B. Gülsün (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 04:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD; apparently, it was PRODded years before. Old article. Fails a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kabbage. Star Mississippi 02:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radius_Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks notability; there is not substantial media coverage (WP:SUBSTANTIAL), and the sources cited are niche and industry-specific, lacking sufficient audience (WP:AUDIENCE). The article appears to be self-promotion. Similar issues were raised with the now-deleted article about the company CEO. Tripofmice (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the suggestion to it a redirect Tripofmice (talk) 14:49, 7 December 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.
Mahsuri National Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:54, 22 November 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 November 22. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of schools in Kedah. It is in that list under the name SMK Mahsuri (currently a redirect to Mahsuri National Secondary School) which is the school's acronym name.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ong Kai Jin, did you check any of the local news sources with the non-English name, such as this one? Although I don't read the local language myself, I am finding enough sources about this school that I am reluctant to redirect it. Since this is the equivalent of a large public high school in the American educational system, it is perhaps not surprising that these news sources exist, and I would expect to find official reports and other reliable sources as well. When the school is located in a non-English-speaking country, searching for its translated name is really not an adequate WP:BEFORE search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The news were about principal thanking a company for gifting glasses to students among interviews of others,[1] some of the individual achievements,[2][3][4] a teacher's own fund to help the needed,[5] two students got a helicopter ride under a government syndicate's initiative,[6] a road accident which mentioned about a mother was sending child to school,[7] an individual interview,[8] an announcement by a company to execute a project with schools[9] and an award for being a teacher figure in the district.[10]
    Those featuring individual achievements and interviews should be disregarded as the school is not inherent of the notability per WP:INHERITORG, and the remaining did not provide in-depth coverage or facts for the school itself. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any source that contains any in-depth coverage about the school itself should be counted. Some editors prefer the Wikipedia:One hundred words standard for "in depth". The point is, those 100 words have to be about the school.
    If you have a source that says "Aisha is a very smart student. She won the city contest for most artistic fruit display. She lives at home with her parents, grandmother, and older brother. Her grandmother taught her how to cut fruit decoratively. She attends the Mahsuri National Secondary School", then that suggests (weak) notability for Aisha, but not her school.
    However, if you have a source that says all of that, plus it has several sentences about the school, then the part of the source about the school (but not the part about the student) counts towards notability for the school. It is not about being "inherent of the notability". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Asri, Suliati (2021-09-27). "Tingkat fokus pelajar". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  2. ^ Osman, Hamzah (2021-07-01). "Nota ringkas bantu Mohamad Hafiz cemerlang STPM". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  3. ^ Osman, Hamzah (2020-03-05). "'Mahsuri' dapat 10A". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  4. ^ Osman, Hamzah (2017-03-16). "Pulut kuning untuk pelajar cemerlang [METROTV]". Berita Harian. Archived from the original on 2017-03-20. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  5. ^ Osman, Hamzah (2020-03-22). "Projek mulia Geng Cikgu, rakan-rakan". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  6. ^ Osman, Hamzah (2020-02-02). "Bertuahnya kamu dik [METROTV]". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  7. ^ Osman, Hamzah (2019-03-16). "Cuma lima saat..." Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  8. ^ Osman, Hamzah (2017-11-07). "Tahan sakit jawab soalan". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  9. ^ Osman, Hamzah (2017-08-20). "i-Muamalat Mobile beri kemudahan 500,000 pelanggan". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  10. ^ Osman, Hamzah (2017-03-16). "Ikhlas jadi pendidik". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  • Keep - Per WhatamIdoing, and adding that as well as SMK Mahsuri (which turns up plenty including some research and book mentions) there are also articles showing for "Mahsuri Secondary" "Langkawi" [30] and presumably other variations. This is one of 22 nominations that were made on the same day, each minutes apart. I do not believe there was time for an adequate WP:BEFORE and my presumption based on sources that show up, and on the nature, size and age of this school, is that it is notable. I have not researched each source more deeply as the size of the task with 22 schools is prohibitive. The SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC close discouraged mass nomination of schools simply because the guideline had changed, and there is no better deletion rationale here as to why these should be deleted. Barring a source analysis that discounts all the sources that prima facie show notability, I think this should be kept Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just false returns. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 18:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • WhatamIdoing, I meant the school does not inherit notability just because any of its students or teachers got featured on news, examples were clear in WP:INHERITORG. They would also fail to be included under lists along with each of their achievements since they are not notable by themselves. WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS advised that specific students should not be mentioned unless they are notable by their own right, and individual awards should not be listed. WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#WNTI also advised not to mention individual pupils or teachers. After excluding them, I do not believe these are contextualizable in the article:

    In 2017, Bank Mualamat announced to launch MyDebit with the school. In 2019, a mother witnessed a car accident while sending her children to the school. In 2020, two students of the school got a helicopter ride under a syndicate's program. In 2021, Tenaga Nasional Berhad contributed 25 glasses for the students.

    I would some of these news have one sentence about the school, even there is some, most of them did not provide relevant facts about the school itself. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ahad Muhammadi Lelaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not qualify for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 18:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]


Xiao Xiao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, there seems to be no WP:SIGCOV. There is coverage of a copyright lawsuit and a single Destructoid article. I have found no other significant, independent sources. WP:RS/VG says Destructoid is only sometimes considered reliable. Alternative Proposed Merge. The creator Zhu Zhiqiang has an article that covers the lawsuit content, and that content relating to Xiao Xiao could perhaps be merged to Zhu Zhiqiang as an alternative to deletion. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:27, 7 December 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.
Snou Strait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Many other language wikis have pages but I'm not seeing usable reliable sources to cite. I'm not finding much else, but I don't speak any of the relevant languages, I would be interested to see if anyone can find anything which would meet the GNG JMWt (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this name doesn't seem to be used in English literature, so I'm actually thinking delete. Mangoe (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propose redirecting List of wars involving South Korea to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea, just like List of wars involving Korea#North Korea. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea (nominated by Cortador), which resulted in the same solution on 3 November 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This outcome (the merger) was most unfortunate. Although Korea has been a divided country since the 1940s, editors seem adamant to treat it as a single country. We don't we give Sudan and South Sudan the same treatment, for good measure? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF Cortador (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mikrobølgeovn has a point, but I think the comparison of Korea with Sudan and South Sudan does not work well. Below I've presented some thoughts on comparing Yemen and Korea, curious what editors think of that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: One of the arguments used by nom of previous AfD was This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen. The first half is true, but not the second: We've got List of wars involving North Yemen, List of wars involving South Yemen, as well as List of wars involving Yemen. However, given the significant amount of WP:OVERLAP between the three, we might consider the North and South lists WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, to be merged into List of wars involving Yemen. (The obvious difference being that North and South Yemen no longer exist, only a united Yemen, at least officially; by contrast, a united Korea no longer exists, but a North and South Korea do, despite claiming the whole peninsula for themselves.) But that would be a good idea for a follow-up if this AfD has been closed as nominated. NLeeuw (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with the list of wars involving North Korea, declaring historical states on the territory of modern South Korea (like Goryeo) to be predecessors to South Korea specifically is questionable. There's currently no need for a separate article. Cortador (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a main one for Korea, with links to separate lists for North Korea and South Korea. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to this alternative proposal of three separate lists:
  1. Korea until 1948
  2. North Korea since 1948
  3. South Korea since 1948
@Shazback below seems to be suggesting the same thing.
If we do choose for this alternative, I would recommend including the words until 1948 and since 1948 in the article titles just to make clear to both readers and editors what the scope of each list is, and to prevent creating WP:REDUNDANTFORKs again. Cortador was right that we shouldn't duplicate content, but merging all three lists into one might not be the best solution. Also for readability, navigability, and categorisation purposes, three separate lists would solve several practical problems, including the untenable idea that there is still a unified Korean state as of 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very surprised by the outcome of the previous AfD, which I did not see/participate in. I would be surprised to be directed to a page covering wars of multiple states if I was looking for either one.
    My suggestion would for "List of wars involving Korea" to be a disambiguation page with 3 pages listed: "List of wars involving states of the Korean peninsula (pre-1948)"; "List of wars involving North Korea"; "List of wars involving South Korea". Both the latter pages only include post-1948 conflicts, and can have a section at the beginning stating that the state claim succession to pre-1948 states if necessary.
    This follows the most common way people view and analyse the world when considering wars (by state), avoids duplication by clearly separating historical lists where states did not match current territories (e.g., whatever criteria are most relevant for inclusion can be decided, for instance to consider the Ungjin Commandery without needing to worry if either South or North Korea claim it as a predecessor state), while remaining clear link targets that can be found easily. Shazback (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of these articles list every war that happened at a location, instead of the current nation. List of wars involving the United States doesn't list the wars that happened there between native Americans or others before the nation was officially founded. Dream Focus 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps because the United States does not claim succession of those states? Plenty of other articles list them by geography / include predecessor states to the current country (e.g., List of wars involving Poland, List of wars involving Vietnam). Shazback (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general rule, we do not create lists or categories based on the geographic location where a war or battle took place, as this is usually WP:NONDEFINING. See WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. These lists are about belligerents involved in a conflict, not countries etc. where the conflict took place. Therefore, there are no battles "involving the United States" prior to the American Revolutionary War. NLeeuw (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I follow / understand fully your comment. Both pages I shared include plenty of elements that occured prior to the current constitution / establishment of the Third Polish Republic or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many of these are lineage / predecessor states that had claim over the general area of the current state (not identical borders). Furthermore, a cursory / quick look at both these lists as well as the list of wars involving the United States shows they include cases were the state is not a belligerent per se: Bleeding Kansas in the USA list, the Later Trần rebellion (1407–1414) in the Vietnam list, and the Januszajtis putsch in the Poland list. I'd also note that World War I is listed as a conflict involving Poland, despite Poland not existing at any point during the war as a clear indication geography is considered when compiling these lists. These lists are not pages I like / find very useful exactly because of the points made in the WP: pages you linked. When looking at wars of Country A, my personal expectation is to see only the wars of what is commonly understood to be Country A in current geopolitics (i.e., for North Korea, 1948+, for the USA 1775/6+, for Poland 1918+, for Vietnam 1976+). But that's not how many other people like it, as they expect to see predecessor states' wars included in these lists. Shazback (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was a reply to both Dream Focus and you. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just adding some thoughts and pointing to some relevant policies and guidelines. NLeeuw (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I see it the current list can't stand as it is but not for notability reasons. South Korea did not exist until 1948, so if we are going to have a list with this title, the earliest war should begin in 1948. However, if we are going to include wars extending back in time in that geographic area than that topic is better covered at List of wars involving Korea. So I would support a Keep if the list does not include content before 1948 or a redirect to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the List of wars involving South Korea and Reestablish the List of wars involving North Korea. Those two are the modern countries and disserve their own articles. The List of wars involving Korea article should have the wars that occurred before the 1945 division of Korea. Dash9Z (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Several participants of the previous AfD, as well as new participants, have indicated that they are surprised by the previous AfD's outcome, and do not think it serves as a good precedent for this one. That undermines my rationale.
As nom, moreover, I am open to the alternative proposal of three separate lists:
  1. involving Korea until 1948
  2. involving North Korea since 1948
  3. involving South Korea since 1948
This alt proposal appears to enjoy a majority right now. The inclusion of the year 1948 in the title of all three separate lists also appears to enjoy some support, in order to prevent duplication (WP:REDUNDANTFORKs) and WP:OR by implying that North Korea and South Korea have already existed for hundreds of years. Even though the ROK and DPRK do not diplomatically recognise each other, the de facto reality is that Korea ceased to be a unified state in or around 1948, and has split in two, a situation which has been consolidated since the 1953 ceasefire. It is probably best if our lists of wars involving Fooland reflect that, and the year 1948 will serve as the turning point in which the Korea list splits into North Korea and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
William A. Flanagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local official. All news coverage I could find is from local outlets, and it all seems like the type of WP:ROTM coverage you'd expect to see for the mayor of the town. I don't think he meets GNG. I'd support a redirect to List of mayors of Fall River, Massachusetts. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, wouldn't this be an argument to have an article for the recall election itself, rather than Flanagan as a person? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, I'd expect us to have both coverage of the recall and a bio on the first person recalled. What we title the page and whether it is in two or one article I think is dependent on the amount and quality of sourcing. However, as it stands, there is no verification that he's even the first successfully recalled Massachusettsian. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dumper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A dumper is exactly the same thing as a dump truck. It's a different article about the same subject in a different variant of English. Cyber the tiger (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distinctly different from dump truck. Djflem (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Council of Presidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP:NORG separate from its parent institution Vermont State Colleges. Coverage is in this context. Redirect to Vermont State Colleges as WP:ATD. Longhornsg (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]